[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.[/quote]
I understand why the process works the way it does. I agree with the underlying principle that it’s better to let a guilty man go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man. When a guilty man goes free, procedural justice may be served, but ultimate justice is not served.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I was thinking the same thing DB. There needs to be some type of testing involved to be on a jury. Getting 12 possible idiots together to decide someone’s fate seems like a terrible idea.[/quote]
It’s basically societal rejects with nothing better to do than sit in a fucking jury box all day for weeks on end that end up becoming jurors. They should at least start paying jurors an amount equal to their daily salary so that people who are actually halfway educated have a chance of ending up on a jury. When they say a jury of your peers, well…as pretentious as it sounds I’ll be goddamned if I have to accept that the people on these juries are my peers.[/quote]
i don’t know about the US, but it’s pretty easy to get out of jury duty here. I just told them I had an exam to write without any proof and they never bothered me again.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.[/quote]
I understand why the process works the way it does. I agree with the underlying principle that it’s better to let a guilty man go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man. When a guilty man goes free, procedural justice may be served, but ultimate justice is not served.[/quote]
This is what I thought you were getting at. No one has been held accountable for the death of Caylee Anthony.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.[/quote]
What does a prosecutor do when the body has decomposed to the point where cause of death cannot be determined ? Is the default ruling going to be innocent then ? Do all murderers go free because they were smart enough to hide the body in a place long enough to allow for such decomposition ?
The prosecutor could do nothing more than what he had, he was speaking to worthless moose-knuckles was the real problem.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.[/quote]
What does a prosecutor do when the body has decomposed to the point where cause of death cannot be determined ? Is the default ruling going to be innocent then ? Do all murderers go free because they were smart enough to hide the body in a place long enough to allow for such decomposition ?
The prosecutor could do nothing more than what he had, he was speaking to worthless moose-knuckles was the real problem. [/quote]
That’s just a compromise in the system we have to live with. The odd murderer will have to go free in order to keep rate at which innocent people are sent to prison down. That is the purpose of beyond reasonable doubt.
In your opinion which is worse… a murder going free due to a lack of evidence or an innocent person receiving the death sentence?
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.[/quote]
What does a prosecutor do when the body has decomposed to the point where cause of death cannot be determined ? Is the default ruling going to be innocent then ? Do all murderers go free because they were smart enough to hide the body in a place long enough to allow for such decomposition ?
The prosecutor could do nothing more than what he had, he was speaking to worthless moose-knuckles was the real problem. [/quote]
That’s just a compromise in the system we have to live with. The odd murderer will have to go free in order to keep rate at which innocent people are sent to prison down. That is the purpose of beyond reasonable doubt.
In your opinion which is worse… a murder going free due to a lack of evidence or an innocent person receiving the death sentence?
[/quote]
Neither.
A mother who clearly had more than just some involvement getting sentenced for manslaughter, child neglect, endangerment, something more than lying.
There might not be enough evidence to lock her in for murder, but for manslaughter, fuck yes.
Sorry, no one uses chloroform but to knock someone out.
[quote]forlife wrote:
…and justice has not been served. I[/quote]
What happened here is the very definition of justice. Innocent until proven guilty.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. They failed.
Justice was served.
The people blaming the jury for the fault of the prosecution need to pull their head out of their ass.[/quote]
What does a prosecutor do when the body has decomposed to the point where cause of death cannot be determined ? Is the default ruling going to be innocent then ? Do all murderers go free because they were smart enough to hide the body in a place long enough to allow for such decomposition ?
The prosecutor could do nothing more than what he had, he was speaking to worthless moose-knuckles was the real problem. [/quote]
That’s just a compromise in the system we have to live with. The odd murderer will have to go free in order to keep rate at which innocent people are sent to prison down. That is the purpose of beyond reasonable doubt.
In your opinion which is worse… a murder going free due to a lack of evidence or an innocent person receiving the death sentence?
[/quote]
Depends, how big a threat is the person being freed. Contrarily their are still plenty of innocents in prison.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I heard this morning that a restaurant owner has banned members of the jury from his restaurant. He’s free to do what he wants, but in my opinion that’s going too far. I think they did the best they could, given the instructions from the judge on their role as jurors.
But yeah. At the end of the day a little girl is dead, and justice has not been served. It’s times like these that I wish there was a god to guarantee ultimate justice.[/quote]
I think this is fine how ever small or symbolic. If the system cannot guarantee justice, then the people must do it on their own. The system is obviously flawed and should not define the basis of morality.
I am ok with a little mob rule. The mob shall guarantee that said cunt will never live a day in her life with out fear. Millions of people hate her, hundreds of those people are just crazy and stupid enough to do something about it.
Let’s see how peaceful her life is…
And I thought a vengeful God was one of your basis for disbelief…Make up your mind!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. ALWAYS.
The prosecution did not have a case so they should have waited until better evidence comes to light.
And let’s not forget that prosecutors do not care about justice. They care about convictions regardless of guilt.
So let’s just call this a WIN for freedom and be done with it.[/quote]
A broken justice system is a LOSS for freedom. If a system cannot protect the most basic rights of it’s citizens, freedom is jeopardized. If you define freedom by murderers getting away with it, then shut down all the prisons and let them all run free. Then the rest of us will get to live ‘in prison’.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. ALWAYS.
The prosecution did not have a case so they should have waited until better evidence comes to light.
And let’s not forget that prosecutors do not care about justice. They care about convictions regardless of guilt.
So let’s just call this a WIN for freedom and be done with it.[/quote]
Presumed innocent until proven guilty,
Not innocent until proven guilty.
There is a difference.
Either somebody killed her, or she died accidentally but her death was covered up. Either way, the person responsible will not be punished, and in that sense justice hasn’t been served.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I heard this morning that a restaurant owner has banned members of the jury from his restaurant. He’s free to do what he wants, but in my opinion that’s going too far. I think they did the best they could, given the instructions from the judge on their role as jurors.
But yeah. At the end of the day a little girl is dead, and justice has not been served. It’s times like these that I wish there was a god to guarantee ultimate justice.[/quote]
I think this is fine how ever small or symbolic. If the system cannot guarantee justice, then the people must do it on their own. The system is obviously flawed and should not define the basis of morality.
I am ok with a little mob rule. The mob shall guarantee that said cunt will never live a day in her life with out fear. Millions of people hate her, hundreds of those people are just crazy and stupid enough to do something about it.
Let’s see how peaceful her life is…
And I thought a vengeful God was one of your basis for disbelief…Make up your mind! [/quote]
I’m not into vigilante justice in most cases.
Lol, not a vengeful god, but a just god. If someone murders her own daughter, she should pay for it big time.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. ALWAYS.
The prosecution did not have a case so they should have waited until better evidence comes to light.
And let’s not forget that prosecutors do not care about justice. They care about convictions regardless of guilt.
So let’s just call this a WIN for freedom and be done with it.[/quote]
Presumed innocent until proven guilty,
Not innocent until proven guilty.
There is a difference.
Either somebody killed her, or she died accidentally but her death was covered up. Either way, the person responsible will not be punished, and in that sense justice hasn’t been served.[/quote]
Punishment is not justice but rather the preservation of basic freedoms is justice.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a basic freedom.
Justice can never be done for murder which is why it is the worst crime one can commit.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. ALWAYS.
The prosecution did not have a case so they should have waited until better evidence comes to light.
And let’s not forget that prosecutors do not care about justice. They care about convictions regardless of guilt.
So let’s just call this a WIN for freedom and be done with it.[/quote]
A broken justice system is a LOSS for freedom. If a system cannot protect the most basic rights of it’s citizens, freedom is jeopardized. If you define freedom by murderers getting away with it, then shut down all the prisons and let them all run free. Then the rest of us will get to live ‘in prison’. [/quote]
Justice was served. A person’s rights were not violated. In this case it is the defendant’s rights that matter here. Not the murder victim’s.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. ALWAYS.
The prosecution did not have a case so they should have waited until better evidence comes to light.
And let’s not forget that prosecutors do not care about justice. They care about convictions regardless of guilt.
So let’s just call this a WIN for freedom and be done with it.[/quote]
Presumed innocent until proven guilty,
Not innocent until proven guilty.
There is a difference.
Either somebody killed her, or she died accidentally but her death was covered up. Either way, the person responsible will not be punished, and in that sense justice hasn’t been served.[/quote]
Punishment is not justice but rather the preservation of basic freedoms is justice.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a basic freedom.
Justice can never be done for murder which is why it is the worst crime one can commit.[/quote]
So we agree that justice wasn’t served, if she was in fact murdered. I think there’s a difference between justice and restitution, though. Restitution for murder is impossible. Justice, in the penal sense, is “a system in which every person receives his or her due”. The murderer never received his or her due. It would be nice if there was a divine system of justice to ensure that happened, but unfortunately I doubt there is.
[quote]forlife wrote:
So we agree that justice wasn’t served, if she was in fact murdered. I think there’s a difference between justice and restitution.[/quote]
Nor does convicting a murderer deliver justice to the murder victim.
Justice and restitution go hand-in-hand because in order give restitution one needs to be able to recognize which side justice is on. Who is the rightful owner of the property in question and who if anyone is responsible for the loss of or damage to said property?
For all of you bible-thumpers out there that believe in divine justice why do you care if a murderer escapes conviction since by your own beliefs he will eventually be brought to “eternal” justice?