Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Net Nanny 5
The world's leading parental control software, controls access to websites and other online content such as Internet-based games, blocks file sharing of music, images and videos, and monitors a user's Internet activity. Know what your child is up to! Click here for more information.

Forum: Victims and Survivors Corner

Thread (Discussion): We need help

Switch to Flat View

In order to post a message to a new thread or reply to existing messages you must be logged in. If you'd like to post messages please login or register as a new user.

Message 122421 (In Reply to Message 122349)

Posted by orolan on Nov 28, 2003 12:00 AM | Also by orolan

Gender: Male, Age Bracket: 40 - 49, State: N/A, Country: United States

Marta,
I fully understand the implications of presumption of innocence as described. Yes, is in fact a "legal" issue. And yes, Joe Blow and his opinion won't amount to anything in the MJ case. But if Joe Blow owns an L.A. television station and insists that his employees continuously bombard the public with diatribes about how "bad" MJ is and proclaim MJ's "guilt", Joe Blow is interfering with MJ's ability to get a fair trial by an impartial jury. Joe Blow is entitled to his opnion, but he needs to stick to the KNOWN facts. In the case of MJ, we KNOW that a boy has made an accusation. What else do we know? Absolutely NOTHING.
In the case of the original poster of this thread, we are given a sob story about how an obviously guilty person was somehow acquitted by a jury of his peers in the face of solid physical evidence, and we are asked to sympathize with this miscarriage of justice.
I have to wonder what the comments would If the origianl poster had been a person claiming their spouse had been convicted by a jury on circumstantial and questionable evidence? Let me guess. The responses would be "that's the way the suystem works", "too bad", or "obviously he was guilty, or the jury wouldn't have convicted".
It bothers me that posters seem to have two different sets of rules and opinions, one for "victims", and another for "offenders". No wonder the courts have souch strict requirements for convictions. Anything else, and people like many posters on this board would simply convict everybody that had the bad luck to be accused of a crime.

See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult the Glossary.

Switch to Flat View

Message 122349
Constitutional rights

Posted by marta on Nov 26, 2003 12:47 AM | Also by marta

Gender: Female, Age Bracket: 30 - 39, State: N/A, Country: United States

>>>
Sure, I sometimes second-guess a jury decision. But only if I've been given all the facts that were presented in the case and/or I attended portions of the trial. No way will I formulate an opinion based only on the words of the "losing" side. Or the "winning" side, for that matter.
And as for MJ, yes, I said that. It is a perfect example. People the world over have already tried and convicted him. Why? Because they don't like him. Ever think about the fact that maybe this thread's original poster doesn't LIKE the exonerated defendant? What evidence is there in the MJ case? At this point, only the statements made by the boy in some therapy session (for what, we don't know). If I were on the jury, the state better come up with something better than that. And right now, MJ is innocent. He will remain so if he is found not guilty.
>>>
With all due respect, orolan, presumption of innocence isn't required of anyone but the state, and then only during a criminal proceeding.  The Supreme Court even ruled in 1979 that the presumption does not extend to pre-trial detainment, i.e. the constitutional rights of the accused in question were not violated when he was treated like a criminal by being held in a rather rough and tumble facility while awaiting trial.  The presumption is a way of guaranteeing due process, of ensuring that the defendant is convicted based on proper procedure and a fair trial.  It is a means, along with the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, of slanting the scales of justice far in the defendant's favor in order to check the state's ability to incarcerate at will those accused of crimes.  It prevents the state from arbitrarily or injudiciously depriving someone of life, liberty, or property.

When you argue that the populace at large should withhold judgment until they have adequate information, it is not without merit.  It is, however, completely unrealistic.  You may be more likely to wait before judging because of your experience, but there is no motivation for most of America to refrain from going with their gut.  And ultimately, what does it matter if Joe Blow in Cincinnati thinks MJ is guilty?  NOT MUCH.  You can argue that it's still unfair, and that it does matter if the people he interacts with everyday judge him prematurely, and you wouldn't be wrong.  Fortunately for him, the people around him aren't allowed to deprive him of life, liberty, or property.  All they can do is ostracize or subtly discriminate against him.  They may be wrong, but they aren't compelled to do otherwise. 
 
I'm sure there are circumstances where you would go with your gut, despite the compelling argument to wait for all the information, no?

Thread

122241, Chopdoc, Nov 24, 2003 07:48 PM [Please help]
      122242, orolan, Nov 24, 2003 08:45 PM
            122246, Silverthorne, Nov 24, 2003 09:45 PM
            122250, steve, Nov 24, 2003 09:51 PM [Not guilty, not innocent]
                  122253, orolan, Nov 24, 2003 11:53 PM
                        122256, steve, Nov 25, 2003 01:20 AM
                        122349, marta, Nov 26, 2003 12:47 AM [Constitutional rights]
                              122421, orolan, Nov 28, 2003 12:00 AM
                                    122542, marta, Dec 01, 2003 07:55 PM [I know]
                                          122545, steve, Dec 01, 2003 08:48 PM
                                          122633, orolan, Dec 03, 2003 02:52 PM
                                                122714, marta, Dec 05, 2003 05:57 AM [It's a wash]
            122415, PVulcan, Nov 27, 2003 10:35 PM
                  122417, Silverthorne, Nov 27, 2003 10:56 PM
      122252, dp1, Nov 24, 2003 11:35 PM [Hello]
      122257, poetsdreamscape, Nov 25, 2003 01:26 AM [Questions]
      122556, lisaearl, Dec 02, 2003 01:44 AM [sorry for your daughter]
            122582, mouseinawheel, Dec 02, 2003 05:46 AM
                  122632, orolan, Dec 03, 2003 02:36 PM [Bravo]

Forum Home | Top of Thread

Tell a Friend about this page.

Sex Offender Registries, Sex Offenders Search, News, Info and Discussion

Forum: Victims and Survivors CornerThread (Discussion): We need help

Message 122421 (In Reply to Message 122349)

Message 122349Constitutional rights

Thread

Forum: Victims and Survivors Corner

Thread (Discussion): We need help

Message 122349
Constitutional rights