🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46lsda$2v4@gazette.tandem.com>, Aqua <reif_andrea@tandem.com> wrote:
>nosferatu@top.monad.net (T. J. Connors, Jr.) wrote:
>> To persecute a person who has been found not guilty by a jury of his
>> peers, whether you agree with the verdict or not, is irresponsible and 
>> un-American.  Every year, hundreds of guilty people are aquited, and
>> hundreds of innocent people are convicted.  It seems to me, that the jury
>> system needs to be reformed.  We must be cautious, however, not to replace
>> our current legal system with a sytem that is much, much worse.
>> Teej
>I don't have to let a jury tell me who I will and will not respect.
>As an individual I have the right to refuse him service

If you own the establishment, and have the appropriate notice posted.
And this most probably VARIES a great deal by State...

>or refuse to greet him

Certainly correct.

>or refuse to give him a job.

BZZT!  Wrong.  Thank you for playing, here's a copy of the home game.

>That's American, it's a free country.

To a point, perhaps, but I dont think _you_ are the final arbitrator
of 'whats American'.  And, not all that is Americana is right, or
reasonable.  We got major problems.  I've reasonable doubt we will
get through it 'near-long term' (another 100 years) without some
serious conflict, bullshit, and/or bloodshed.

Makes on think of moving overseas.

>Not that I will ever be in a position to do any of these things.  Of
>course noone has the right to do damage to his property or person or to
>invade his privacy.

Denying employment simply because of the case *would* be 'damaging his
person', and would probably be actionable.  Not sure, I'm not a lawyer,
but, perhaps someone else here will clarify.  Might vary by State a
little, but, an acquital is an acquital, and discriminating based
on not agreeing would certainly seem like a litigious lode o gold to
me...

>Someone being found not guilty by a jury only means that there was a
>reasonable doubt not that anyone should want to associate with the
>defendant.

Uhm, _it_ (the verdict) merely _means_ the prosecution failed, nothing
more, nothing less.  They didnt convince the jury.  The only job with
which they were legall vested.  Anyone who wants to dispute this fact
is cordially invited to direct all responses to /dev/null.  I dont even
want to hear it.

>I agree that the system could use some reform.

You bet.  Drug War, OUT!  Welfare for illegal immigrants (no matter what
their race) OUT!  Demipubs and Republicrats, OUT!  Hunger, OUT! Nafta, OUT!
Gatt, OUT!  Government overspending, OUT!  PACs, OUT!  Professional Lobbyists,
OUT!  Foriegn Lobbyists, DEAD!  Curbs on importing immigrant labor IN!
Re-evaluation of our monetary policy which currently REQUIRES a certain % of
unemployment, YOU BET!  Re-evaluation of our electoral process, which keeps the
right people out, and the wrong people in, YOU BET!  Pensions for Elected
Officials, OUT!  Professional Politicians PERIOD, OUT! 'Foriegn Aid' while
Americans go hungry, OUT!  BILLION DOLLAR BOMBERS when schools need computers,
OUT!  ARRESTING PEOPLE FOR FEEDING PARKING METERS, *OUT* (yes folks, just look
at Santa Cruz, for crying out loud)!

Lots of work needs to be done...  

>But a perfect system is impossible because the evidence is never complete.
>It is often impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is
>guilty.

Then that person SHOULDNT be convicted!  Jeez, are you saying the Reasonable
Doubt standard has got to go?  Is that what you're trying to pawn off on us?

Please!!!

>But if you allow a laxer standard [more] innocent people will be convicted.

Exactly!  I inserted the qualification, a certain number of innocent people are
convicted already, today, here and now.  Most get out on appeal, years later,
the damage done.  This would increase, dramatically.

>I can't readily see a solution except perhaps in some utopian society where
>the desire to do wrong is virtually eliminated.

Nah, lemme pose this one.  What if we could go back in time, and REPLACE
Fuher-Man/MadHatter (ok, and the rest of the dept) with non-racist cops, and
simply re-run the 'computer model'?  If all the facts where still there,  I bet
the case would fly, like a fucking bird.

If the tapes HAD NEVER HAPPENED.  This case PROBABLY would have resulted in
a conviction.  All the jury needed, in todays reality, was mere re-enforcement
on how tight the timeframe was (or impossible, YMMV) in ADDITION to Fuher-mans
lie (which was a fact the *Jury* _witnessed_), to, IMO, provide reasonable
doubt.

I've this question for you.  If it was ok and legal for the prosecution to
put Fuher-man on the stand, where he LIED on the stand, why the hell isnt it
'ok' to make him TAKE THE FIFTH in FRONT of the JURY?  Hmmm?

How come ole Fuher-Man isnt being PROSECUTED by the LA area DA for PERJURY?

Seems to me we dont even need a TRIAL for that one!  Its already been proven!!

BUT, thats just MY analysis.  !!YMMV!!

The solution?  CLEAN UP THE COPS!  When their shit dont smell, not because
they sanitized it, but because IT JUST DONT SMELL, things will be different.

If the tapes didnt exist, if Fuher-man hadnt been a racist ass, or a cop PERIOD,
and all the facts *were* still there, OJ would be in prison right now.

Of that I have no doubt.  Or at least it would have been a mis-trial, if
some jurors DID hold out anyway.

However, WE WILL NEVER KNOW.  One way, or the other, FOR CERTAIN.

[Well, we could, if we took Fuher-man AND OJ 'aside' for 30 minutes or so,
 behind closed doors, Constitution aside...  Pharmacology, ya know...]

Ron and Nicole ARE STILL DEAD.  OJ will NOT be re-tried in a criminal court.

Frank is right.  Facts, is facts.

Followups are set.  I will speak no more of the subject, forever.

I'm SICK of OJ, and the WHOLE DAMN THING!


Rich Bland
rcb@intsyson.com