Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
deserves to go to prison. Seriously, the evidence was flawed.
the Naked Gun trilogy
There's two reasons.
be cornholed by the American "Justice" system.
Just a thought.
Why imprison a fine athlete?
It's obviously true that juries make mistakes on occasion but the Judge can't say "well, there's a statistical chance the Jury might have been wrong so I'll ignore them."
1) he was validly convicted in a court of law
2) that's it
You may think it was a poor jury decision, and it does look like it might be...but a poor jury decision is not a miscarriage of justice. Juries make bad decisions relatively frequently. OJ Simpson has just learnt that these poor decisions can work against you, as well as in your favour.
Convicting the innocent potentially leads to one person losing their liberty.
Acquitting a serial killer could lead to numerous people losing their lives...
I'd say we're in an area of philisophical and ethical debate here where you couldn't say for absolute certain one's better than the other.
which essentially says that the burden of proof should be on the prosecution and that guilt should be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It's all about taking steps to protect the innocent from being unfairly convicted.
It doesn't actually make any judgements about which type of miscarriage of justice is worse than another, only that justice should be weighted towards a presumption of innocence.
The burden of proof IS on the prosecution and it's within that legal system that Simpson was found guilty. Obviously it's unfortunate in this case that, no matter how much anyone tried, I doubt any jury could assess the case on evidence alone and entirely put media speculation about Simpson out their mind but ultimately he's received as fair a trial as someone as notorious as him could get. I'd sympathise with the view that the jury maybe it was a poor jury decision and that maybe the judge's sentence was harsh but, as ottermagic says, a poor jury decision does not mean that the procedures of justice haven't been fairly followed and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest he's been unreasonably treated.
Plus he would have the right to appeal. Which wouldn't make up for time unfairly spent in prison but nonetheless that right is there.
He may be a dick and an idiot but he isn't a murderer.
I'm not just being pedantic in that he was not found guilty of being so, but in that the facts suggest that his strange attitude towards his charges was due to him realising that to prove his innocence would convict his son.
These trumped up charges and over zealous sentencing is to make make Joe Public happy. It sucks.