| 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
Message 122542 (In Reply to Message 122421)
I know
Posted by marta
on Dec 01, 2003 07:55 PM | Also by marta
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
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.
>>>
I thought I made it clear that the only reason Mr. Blow may "need" to stick to the known facts is because of his compelling sense of journalistic integrity, or his well-developed sense of justice. He is not compelled by anything else.
I also thought I conveyed that while this sucks, no one comports themselves with the notions of due process 100% of the time, yourself included (along with me). Some are more careful than average, but it's part of the human condition to be suspicious, petty, and to want to believe bad things about others who don't easily fit into the way we understand the world.
EXAMPLE:
>>>
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.
>>>
You've made a fairly hefty accusation (that she's lying) with insufficient evidence. Why bother? It's not clear why you would assume a lie from the get go, without asking a lot more questions. Except, perhaps because you have a bone to pick, because you think you're more likely than not right. Just like all the people speculating about Michael Jackson.
>>>
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?
>>>
If the original post was as ambiguous as this post, no one should respond with anything but questions. In a perfect world.
>>>
Let me guess.
>>>
Feel free to speculate away. We're not in court here after all.
>>>
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".
>>>
I haven't seen this occurring. I know that I myself tend to attack anyone who isn't rigorous about giving information but still expects sympathy.
This assumption of guilt phenomenon occurs because it is inconsistent with conventional wisdom that people walking the straight and narrow can suddenly be dragged into a pit of injustice by the horrible monster that is the American criminal justice system. People who suspect wrong-doing without solid evidence of it do so not because they're immoral or unjust, but because everything about their world throughout their entire life makes it seem HIGHLY improbable that a person will get in trouble with the law if he/she didn't do anything wrong.
Your job is education, not castigating and crying foul.
| See an abbreviation or acronym, but don't know what it stands for? Consult
the Glossary. |
Switch to Flat View
Message 122421
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 |
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
|
|
