(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-07 11:55 pm (UTC)
Not for the first time do I wonder whether the media saturation of this trial was on purpose so that people would become more and more dis-satisfied with the current system that we have.

I deliberately did not follow this trial because I had learned my lesson with the *first* OJ Simpson trial, but had picked up enough of this one to glean this: Whether the evidence is enough to convict, or not enough so that there is an acquittal of a murder charge, don't act like life is easy-breezy when your child has gone missing.

With the first OJ trial, there was certainly enough blood evidence, but it was mis-handled by the police, the prosecution was slow on the uptake, and of course there was celebrity and the race card thrown in and used for all they were worth by the defense. In the Anthony case, there was little hard evidence, but the media created the circus atmosphere all the same so that outrage of the acquittal of a murder charge was guaranteed.

"Not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." Yet "innocent until proven guilty" is the basis for the use of our jury system, as opposed to the use of the Napoleonic code, where three judges ask the questions in a trial and the burden is to prove innocence rather than guilt.
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

July 2025

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27 28293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags