This. I am also saddened by all the "The system worked" crowd. Yes, it did, if you believe in the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. A three year old child died and the person responsible walked away scot free. I've heard all the arguments about botched prosecution, etc., but when we as a society do not see this as a failure of the system, we are on our way down.It's very sad to me folks in this country care more about a trial then they do about the situation this country is in right now.
This. I am also saddened by all the "The system worked" crowd. Yes, it did, if you believe in the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. A three year old child died and the person responsible walked away scot free. I've heard all the arguments about botched prosecution, etc., but when we as a society do not see this as a failure of the system, we are on our way down.
Let more and more of these type cases go by and you might see people taking the law into their own hands. I agree that the prosecutors botched the case. The jury admitted it, too, and legally they voted the way they were supposed to. True justice was not done in this case, no matter who screwed up.I agree. Let's just lynch her & call it done.
Just going by the wikipedia page, there was no direct evidence to prove her guilt
This. I am also saddened by all the "The system worked" crowd. Yes, it did, if you believe in the letter of the law above the spirit of the law. A three year old child died and the person responsible walked away scot free. I've heard all the arguments about botched prosecution, etc., but when we as a society do not see this as a failure of the system, we are on our way down.
Which is exactly why we should be more demanding of our legal system. Instead of celebrating that the system "worked", we should be holding those we have put in power to serve justice accountable. The system is becoming too much of a system for lawyers and judges to make money and a name for themselves rather than what it was originally intended to do.It may be a failure of the system, but I'd rather follow the system than have this happen every time we get a verdict that we don't believe in. The photos below are after the Rodney King verdict in 1992:
View attachment 181787
View attachment 181785
View attachment 181786
we should be holding those we have put in power to serve justice accountable.
Which is exactly why we should be more demanding of our legal system. Instead of celebrating that the system "worked", we should be holding those we have put in power to serve justice accountable. The system is becoming too much of a system for lawyers and judges to make money and a name for themselves rather than what it was originally intended to do.
Then you may want to avoid reading the latest in the Roger Clemens case. Your head may explode.
I had spent considerable time writing a thoughtful post about this, then hit Reply, then bloop! Thread Closed. This is my first major criticism of this forum. Delete the offending posts, not the thread.
I was going to say that I thought the Headline News Network (HLN) coverage was the worst part of it because it was like a pep rally, with overt bias toward opinions they thought were popular. It was an unprofessional free for all, with the one interrupting and yelling the loudest getting his/her say in.
At what point did the media quit reporting and started telling us what to think?
Hold them accountable how?
By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.
That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.
As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.
No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.
Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?
My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.
If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.
Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.
It's a noble, and worthy philosophy, and it's good enough for me.
Hold them accountable how?
By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.
That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.
As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.
No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.
Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?
My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.
If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.
Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.
It's a noble, and worthy philosophy, and it's good enough for me.
My head already exploded on the Roger Clemens case. First, WTH, with all the problems this country is facing, is Congress doing worrying about MLB? Second, does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? Arguably the biggest group of liars in the nation are going to prosecute someone else for lying to them, especially when many of them have been caught in lies during their tenures with no repercussions whatsoever.Then you may want to avoid reading the latest in the Roger Clemens case. Your head may explode.
..Hold them accountable how?
By them losing their jobs, or at the minimum splitting this team up and not letting them have any cases of any importance. Like many other public servants, if they performed like they do when they are being paid by taxpayers in the private sector, they would quickly be out of work. Many of us who have owned businesses or supervised employees in the private sector wouldn't tolerate incompetence like what has been shown by the prosecutors in this case.
By providing a means by which prosecutors are too much punished or rewarded for the outcome we want, we encourage convictions by any means, which includes falsification of evidence.
That happens enough as it is by those greedy to climb the ladder to success, we don't need to encourage it.
I'm not concerned about getting the outcome I wanted in this case. Like I said earlier, personally, I put more importance on the fact that a child died with no repercussions while many are yukking it up and celebrating that the system "worked". Again, I am not concerned with what outcome I want as much as I am seeing a competent and well planned defense or prosecution, especially in cases where a death is involved. I also believe that cases of falsification of evidence should be handled swiftly and decisively. The Duke LaCrosse Rape trial, being one such example.
As I said before, is the system flawed? Yes it is. Sometimes the innocent are wrongly punished and sometimes the guilty go free, but it is the best system there is, and for all it's errors it's a damn sight better than a summary execution.
No one who passingly talks about vigilantism as a possible solution could have ever thought it through completely. The media and the Nancy Graces of the world would be best served to remember that, lest they find the mob knocking at their own door one night in the not so distant future.
Show me where I advocated vigilantism. This keeps being thrown at me like I have wanted her lynched and that is not the case. What I did say is that if enough botched and grossly mismanaged trials are held in the future, people may start taking the law into their own hands if they feel like the system is failing them. I would much rather see investigators, lawyers, judges, etc. step up their game to keep this from happening.
Those who feel the system failed in this case, I sympathize, but it doesn't mean the system is broken. What is your alternative?
By what means would you have gotten a conviction in this case where the prosecution failed?
The system itself may not be broken, but the people working the system aren't always living up to the job they took on. I'm not sure that some states require cameras in the courtroom, but if they do, that should be looked at in future trials. The OJ Simpson trial is one that really comes to mind. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers all of a sudden appear to be more concerned with their 15 minutes than the execution of justice. They were not hired to be TV stars, but some of them surely act that way.
How would I have gotten a conviction? I surely wouldn't have went after her for 1st degree murder, for one. There were also numerous mistakes committed by the investigators as well. Lots of botched opportunities were missed in this case.
My faith in the system is strengthened by this case, not lessened by it.
If I am innocent, I'd much rather put my fate in the hands of the 12 who "wrongly" set her free, than in the hands of those vocal few here who would see her strung up in spite of a lack of evidence to convict.
Though William Blackstone said it in the memorable catch phrase "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", that very principle has been a guiding focal point for justice since before the days of Abraham.
I am no fan of kangaroo courts myself. That said, there are two sides of the coin in the justice system, but only one side seems to be celebrated anymore. There have been numerous cases where criminals have been set free due to clerical errors or some glitch in the system that didn't really impede the suspect's right to a fair trial. Cases like that are victories for the defense lawyers and criminals only. I'm sure that victims of criminals released in that manner may not be quite as prone to celebration of the system "working".