When the Innocent are Proven Guilty . . .
 

Check out this story (you've probably already heard about it):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4229734

I think this just shows that there are still bugs in the American Judicial System...
When a man is sent to prison for a crime he never commited, something is seriously wrong...

Your thoughts?

From reading his comments, he is a very strong man. This case is a very big shame on our "justice" system. The system of 2004 is better than the system of 1968, but our prisons hold men and women from all points in recent history, and the system is always changing... very interesting.

At least he got a trial, 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with plea bargains. They are intimidated into taking the bargains, there warned that whether they are actually guilty or innocent the police have enough evidence to arrest them and so there probably going to jail. And so it would be in there best interest to throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

frontline did a documentary on it
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ows/plea/view/

You're also forgetting one thing...

And once the media and tv programs get a hold of the case, it's gone from there. Half the world thinks you are guilty a minute and a half into the show, and you're as good as gone from that point on.

Something is seriously wrong here.

Where went the land of the free and home of the brave?...

I’d personally wonder who ever came up with that idea of the “land of the free”in the first place. America is about as free as most western powers. At the moment there 17 in the world for personal freedom, just one ahead of the much hated French.

In the words of a man grater than I
“You have the right to free
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.

Know your rights
These are your rights
All three of 'em”

One of the best indicators to how much freedom people have is how much there country talks about how free it is.

But rant over,

As far as cord cases go, how may people thing Scott Peterson should swing. And of the people that raised there hands, how many of you have been present at every day of the trial.

Between a millionaire chopping up his neighbor & dropping him in a nearby lake, and OJ, both getting off free, I'm not ready to suggest the media has that kind of power. Of course in both cases, there was a lot of money involved, but on the other hand Media is pretty much exclusively attracted to those sorts of cases.

SWK

My point with the media was that once it gets involved, it's damn near impossible to get off.

Also, on the Scott Peterson thing. I've only seen the summaries of what happened...but, I do say this...There's no real forensic evidence pointing him to the crime. No matter how you look at it, you can't truly prove a man guilty without that. Just saying how the justice system works...

Ah well. What can ya do?...

Edit:

Whoops, I forgot a few things!

Well, one thing mostly. There is no true thing as freedom so long as laws and government exist. To be free is to live in anarchy. Which is better for you? Consider the options, and it's all a matter of personal opinion from there.

Hey, C'mon now LordTobias, I don't want this thread turning into a discussion about the pros and cons of anarchy: That's just too off topic...

The great thing about our law system is that, although we see flagrant errors like the one mentioned in the article, it is always improving. Our law system is based on trial and error, and our descisions are based on past cases, so, no matter what, our law system gradually filters out any misconceptions and flaws.

Of course, one must also keep in mind our law system's dependency on human thinking, and therefore its possibillity for human error...

The fact is that "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't really exist in America: If it did, there would be countless numbers of criminals who would get away Scott free, because although they had a motive and an oppurtunity, there wasn't enough evidence to actually "prove" them guilty. Judges tend to swing towards guilty even if the evidence isn't substantial enough, simply because people convicted for criminal offenses usually ARE guilty. If judges actually followed the "innocent until proven guilty" routine, sure, there wouldn't be any of these falsely accused people. But keep in mind that many more people who actually commit crimes would get away innocent as well.

Judges don't lay down judgement in a murder trial, a jury of 12 peers makes the judgement.

Your confusing innocent until proven guilty, with beyond a reasonable doubt.
The principal of innocent until proven guilty is used because its almost impossible to prove your innocence. Hence it puts the burden of proof on the accuser.
But beyond reasonable doubt is different, it’s a standard of proof. It means that after thorough investigation the proposition is only considered true if no reasonable doubts about it exist. This is because the legal system is based on the philosophy that it would rather let a million guilty men go free then punish one innocent.

A different standard of proof exists in civil court cases, its called balance of probability. All you are required to do is prove the accused probably did it. This is how OJ got off on the criminal case but not the civil.

And my point with the whole land of the free thing. As far as personal freedoms go America is on the shallow end of the western democracy freedom pool. But they never shut up about how free they are. It was horribly off topic, true but off topic. I was quite drunk. It’s probably best to forget the whole thing.