More Crime and Justice stink. -- MIDRANGE-NONTECH

On Sunday 30 September 2001 07:04 pm, jt wrote:
> > I'm going to cut to the quick:  Since we agree on the bottom line, what's
> > the point of the rest of the argument...?
>
> I don't think we do agree on the bottom line. It seems to me that you feel (
> or I should say, "I thought you stated...") that the jurors in the OJ case
> did not deliberate the case enough and presented an invalid verdict.
>
> >> That is my contention.  IMHO.

Then we disagree on this.

> > As it happens, my understanding of the law is not great.  But it is that
> the
> > jurists are not ALLOWED BY LAW, to discuss the case prior to
> deliberations.
> >
> > Either they broke the law, they didn't deliberate the facts sufficiently,
> > they saw clearly what the rest of the country did not see clearly, or you
> > are starting with the assumption that I'm not seeing this clearly and
> > working backwards to derive your arguments.
>
> I don't even get what you are saying here. I did not state that the jurors
> had discussed the case before sent to deliberate.
>
> >> No...  I did...  I believe there is some question about this, so I
> brought it up.  I also stated that even if there were no actual discussions,
> it wouldn't take a Houdini to figure it out.

Houdini to figure out what? Oh, wait, I think I recall, didn't you mean that
jurors wouldn't need to be Houdini to figure out what others felt like and
thus the jurors who believed he was guilty were silently intimidated into
going along with those who believed he was not guilty?

To me that seems awful flawed and points out what must be your fundamental
belief that all trials would be flawed in the same way, right? Now don't get
all mad at me for asking this, but I'm asking if you feel like this case (the
OJ case) is the only one it happened in or do you think that (sometimes,
often, whatever) when there is a short deliberation in cases it is because
some jurors are being silently intimidated into going along with the others?

Is this a belief that you have? Do you see this as a flaw in the jury system?

> I stated I felt that the
> case was particularly well covered in the courtroom. To me, a short
> deliberation tends to indicate that the jurors were in agreement and didn't
> feel that issues still needed to be clarified.
>
> >> I think many in this country would beg to differ.  I think the opposite
> judgment in the civil case clearly calls this contention into question.

I don't see why. See, the jurors in the two cases were actually presented two
different sets of evidence.

I don't think that public opinion determines what is correct. In fact, I feel
that public opinion is greatly influenced by mass media. So using public
opintion to shore up your position seems like a weakness to me.

> >> Furthermore, I think the this issue of OJ's guilt or innocence is still
> very devisive, and that's why Jay Leno still gets roars of laughter, and
> moans, with his OJ jokes. (What... 2 or 3 years after the case...  My Wife
> says this happened around 1994, but OJ is still the butt of all these
> jokes...)

Cool. So Jay Leno is a yardstick of crime and justice?

I don't get what you are telling me with the above paragraph. Did you mean
"divisive" which is defined as "creating disunity or dissention"? If so, what
does that have to do with Jay Leno? Or did you mean "derisive"" That is
related to derision and really seems more related to Jay Leno (since he
obviously ridicules using OJ).

But I really don't think that Jay Leno is a determining factor in guilt or
innocence or even in the validity of the court process. I really think that
Jay Leno simply uses issues of broad public interest to create humor. I like
Jay, but I don't watch talk shows much so I don't usually get to see him.

> I know that I could be completely wrong. They could have simply all been
> well
> bribed. But I don't have information on that.
>
> >> ICBW, too...  I do feel it's doubtful they were bribed.  Far more likely
> that they either made a good judgment, or they goofed.

Well, I'd have to say that is very accurate. Either they made a good
judgement, or they goofed.

> >> I'm willing to give you the last word, and then, in all probability, I
> will refrain from commenting further.  I would suggest that it is also
> theoretically possible that if you and I, Chris, gave this forum a little
> space, some others (possibly from outside the 400 community) might be
> inclined to discuss other issues.

Do you feel we are crowding others out? I'm pretty sure they can "post
around".

> >> Chris... if you read everything that I've posted in public, you can see
> my growth from lurker, to writer, to activist, to philosopher.  These were
> not done sequentially, but iterrively (sp?).  Most of this growth occurred
> in private correspondence, so don't be fooled into thinking you can
> comprehend me by reading my public posts, nor by intellect alone.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I felt that I "comprehend you" or that
this is something I was working toward. I was just discussing.

> >> jjt

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31