Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The law is made to be black and white. You are either guilty of a crime or not guilty.1. Not telling the truth on the witness stand is perjury and there is a law for just that occurence.
2. Juries are instructed in the law and directed in what they are or are not take into consideration when deliberating.
The system is not perfect in every single way, but it is the best system for determining guilt. The system works all the time even if there are times that the verdict was not correct.
In this case, it is a FACT that Michael Jackson is not guilty.
True; Either Guilty or Not Guilty. Yet when delibarating, jurors are faced with different shades of grey. one juror then takes all the aspects into consideration and sees what is the MOST LIKELY. thats why they dont all agree between themselves with what is to be the final outcome.
I aslo agree that the system is far from perfect but we all agree that there should be a system. To teach lessons to society that there things that can and cannot be done and the consequences of a Guilty Vedict.
None the less, going through a case in court is frustrating to everyone, so in itself it instills a lesson that has consequences too.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The law is made to be black and white. You are either guilty of a crime or not guilty.
Like I said, that must be a blissful world.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
1. Not telling the truth on the witness stand is perjury and there is a law for just that occurence.
But you have to prove or show that the witness is lying, therein lies the rub. I was involved in a court case that went to arbitration, the arbitrator said to me, "you know that he's lying, and I know that he is lying, however, you have to prove that he is lying, and his lawyers can distort the truth or do whatever it takes to make sure that proving he is lying is next to impossible."
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
2. Juries are instructed in the law and directed in what they are or are not take into consideration when deliberating.
That being said, the same people who sit on a jury also wallow in the tabloid news of Paris Hilton's life and buy Britney Spears and other prefabricated schlock. I question a system that would allow many people who can't handle the minutia in their own lives decide upon the lives of others.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The system is not perfect in every single way, but it is the best system for determining guilt. The system works all the time even if there are times that the verdict was not correct.
So you say that the system works even if a guilty man is set free or an innocent man goes to prison? That is an interesting concept of justice.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
In this case, it is a FACT that Michael Jackson is not guilty.
No, the facts are only known to Jackson and the kid. Another fact is that the california court has ruled that MJ is innocent. However that does not make it fact that MJ is innocent.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Like I said, that must be a blissful world.
I'm not going to give credit to your pompous digs at me. Your opinion is yours but it means nothing, just as mine means nothing.
But you have to prove or show that the witness is lying, therein lies the rub. I was involved in a court case that went to arbitration, the arbitrator said to me, "you know that he's lying, and I know that he is lying, however, you have to prove that he is lying, and his lawyers can distort the truth or do whatever it takes to make sure that proving he is lying is next to impossible."
And that makes the system broken? The burden of proof is one of the wonderful aspects of the judicial system.
That being said, the same people who sit on a jury also wallow in the tabloid news of Paris Hilton's life and buy Britney Spears and other prefabricated schlock. I question a system that would allow many people who can't handle the minutia in their own lives decide upon the lives of others.
Oh, so the average person is not good enough to be on a jury in your mind. Once again, you're being pompous.
So you say that the system works even if a guilty man is set free or an innocent man goes to prison? That is an interesting concept of justice.
The verdict is not always correct, as I stated before, but the system of getting to that verdict works very well.
No, the facts are only known to Jackson and the kid. Another fact is that the california court has ruled that MJ is innocent. However that does not make it fact that MJ is innocent.
No, you are wrong. The California Court ruled that Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY of the charges filed against him. The words are quite deliberate on purpose. NOT GUILTY says the prosecution could not prove guilt in the case, not that the defense proved INNOCENCE. The fact is Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY. The court never said he was innocent.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by whirlysplat
and yes Khama it makes mistakes but there is no better system.I think that's what worries me the most. sad
You have to remember that Kharma's opinion is the only one that matters, and he is above all of us. ❌ He can't come up with a better system, so he feels the need trash the current system when he disagrees with it.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
I'm not going to give credit to your pompous digs at me. Your opinion is yours but it means nothing, just as mine means nothing.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
And that makes the system broken? The burden of proof is one of the wonderful aspects of the judicial system.
Unfortunately, the facts can be manipulated and lies can be told so long as they don't get caught. It's a game, and often an unethical one. The concept is great, but it doesn't work that way.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
Oh, so the average person is not good enough to be on a jury in your mind. Once again, you're being pompous.
No the average person is not good enough. There I said it. Hate me if you want but that is the way I feel. Look at the percentage of people who can't spell or put together a coherent sentence. Look at the percentage of people in the world who are not sure as to who there current political leader is. Look at the amount of people who cannot make even the most basic common sense decisions in their own life, these are the people who sit on a jury.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
The verdict is not always correct, as I stated before, but the system of getting to that verdict works very well.
And that is where I disagree. The concept is great, the execution is lacking.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
No, you are wrong. The California Court ruled that Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY of the charges filed against him. The words are quite deliberate on purpose. NOT GUILTY says the prosecution could not prove guilt in the case, not that the defense proved INNOCENCE. The fact is Michael Jackson is NOT GUILTY. The court never said he was innocent.
You are absolutely correct on that count. I admit my mistake on that one, poor choice of words.
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
You have to remember that Kharma's opinion is the only one that matters, and he is above all of us. ❌ He can't come up with a better system, so he feels the need trash the current system when he disagrees with it.
That's a very childish post, I don't ever recall saying that my opinion is the only one that matters, or that I am above you all. Don't resort to such childish behaviour, it shows little character, if you have a problem with me, PM me.
Originally posted by KharmaDogNo the average person is not good enough. There I said it. Hate me if you want but that is the way I feel. Look at the percentage of people who can't spell or put together a coherent sentence. Look at the percentage of people in the world who are not sure as to who there current political leader is. Look at the amount of people who cannot make even the most basic common sense decisions in their own life, these are the people who sit on a jury. [/B]
And your argument collapses. If the average person is on trial, he has the right to a jury of his peers. And there is no one on earth with the right to pick 12 morally and intellectually superior people to serve on a jury.
Have you ever served on a jury? If so, why did you not disqualify yourself, because you're just as "average" as anybody else.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
That's a very childish post, I don't ever recall saying that my opinion is the only one that matters, or that I am above you all. Don't resort to such childish behaviour, it shows little character, if you have a problem with me, PM me.
Hmmm... and your posts trying to subtley imply that I am ignorant and living in a fantasy world shows great character. Childish behavior? I am stating my opinion of the tone of your posts. I don't have a problem with you, I have a problem with your pompous comments.
Originally posted by GCG
Sorry to be a wet blanket once again, but the term courts use is NOT GUILTY.The term innocent is never used !
Besides that another term used is Cleared, which doesnt mean he is innocent at all.
One gets cleared from the charges brought against him or her cause there would be holes all over the prosecution's case.
"Not Guilty" means innocent, as opposed to the long defunct (though not in Scotland) term "Not Proven."
It is a total exoneration and means you can never be tried on those charges again, on the idea that the Court of Law has determined you did not do it.