Oh How I Hate To Agree With Him
O.J. Simpson invoked his freedom of speech after a jury recently also found Robert Blake "liable" for his wifes murder, saying he finds it impossible how anyone found "not guilty"of a murder can then be held liable for it in any way, shape or form. Not guilty BUT responsible? How is that legally possible in our famous justice system. I myself can't fathom such a thing. I personally believed both O.J. and Blake were guilty as charged; but accepted it as a necessary evil in proving our legal system is anything BUT just. These two capital cases alone ought to be enough to abolish the death penalty in at least 90% of all cases now on death row.
I could only approve a death sentence when there is NO doubt and such a burden ought only be left to a judge, not an oftentimes incompetent jury. Don't get me wrong jurors mean well, its just that their ill equipped for the task, something akin to Bush trying to run a country.
Confessions, such as from braggards and the remorseful, yes execute them. But circumstantial evidence that noone saw him do it, but A,B & C happened and they all taken together point to the defendant - NO I couldn't and have told Judges that exact same thing. One judge asked me one time if I was instructed by him that an accomplice,who knew they were doing say a robbery and nothing else, suddenly saw his crime partner decide to murder all the witnesses, is guilty of murder as much as if he pulled the trigger, could I find him guilty of the crime of murder? I told him no, especially if it meant that he too would then be subject to a death sentence. I was dismissed!
But yes back to OJ, he makes sense unfortunately, when he says the difference is in the "standard" applied. In a civil trial you need only find a "preponderance of the evidence", or in other words at least 51%. Add to that, my opinion that America thinks money settles everything, and everything has its "price" and there you have it. Further, money in fact "talks"very loudly and as a result makes itself heard, which is why the rich suffer neither the same conviction rate nor the same penalty as the less financially able. Go no further than the current case just closed against actor Russell Crowe, in which he got merely a tiny fraction of what you or I would get for the same offense.
Confessions, such as from braggards and the remorseful, yes execute them. But circumstantial evidence that noone saw him do it, but A,B & C happened and they all taken together point to the defendant - NO I couldn't and have told Judges that exact same thing. One judge asked me one time if I was instructed by him that an accomplice,who knew they were doing say a robbery and nothing else, suddenly saw his crime partner decide to murder all the witnesses, is guilty of murder as much as if he pulled the trigger, could I find him guilty of the crime of murder? I told him no, especially if it meant that he too would then be subject to a death sentence. I was dismissed!
But yes back to OJ, he makes sense unfortunately, when he says the difference is in the "standard" applied. In a civil trial you need only find a "preponderance of the evidence", or in other words at least 51%. Add to that, my opinion that America thinks money settles everything, and everything has its "price" and there you have it. Further, money in fact "talks"very loudly and as a result makes itself heard, which is why the rich suffer neither the same conviction rate nor the same penalty as the less financially able. Go no further than the current case just closed against actor Russell Crowe, in which he got merely a tiny fraction of what you or I would get for the same offense.
posted by D. Coder | 1:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home