4 ms·

It's quite strange how people are both arguing that the prosecutor is blind to justice (he was falsely accused, because he was not convicted, this is wrong!) bu

by jack9 10y ago

It's quite strange how people are both arguing that the prosecutor is blind to justice (he was falsely accused, because he was not convicted, this is wrong!) but also not blind when counting the particulars of associated circumstances. I'm reminded of Aaron Hernandez being acquitted of murders, but convicted of the murder of a witness to cover up the deaths. At some point you have to rationalize that the law is not always correct and that goes both ways (for the innocent and the guilty). I never found the "they weren't convicted" argument much more weighty than the "they were convicted". He was probably guilty, they just couldn't get their case together.

jacquesm 10y ago
> He was probably guilty, they just couldn't get their case together. That's why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. If you can't get your case together in an X amount of time that is the equivalent of not having a case. So, given that he wasn't convicted, not guilty. You can't say that he probably was guilty and not say that about every other person that ever got acquitted, which is nonsense. So that claim simply does not hold up. I agree with you that the law (or rather, justice) isn't correct and that this goes both ways. So if you are already of that opinion then why negate it after that by saying that he probably was guilty? That's after all what courts are for.
- jack9 10y ago
  > You can't say that he probably was guilty I can and do, which is not nonsense applied to an infinite amount of theoretical past cases. That's not relevant. Cases aren't assembled just to get a conviction on 20 specific items (http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-the-same-offence.html http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-th...). US justice system is not about truth or even justice, but an amalgamation of concerns and subject to the irregularities of reality (if key witness X has a heart attack and dies, a case Y can fall apart). I'm not subject to these concerns and limitations (which are both historical and societal, without being strictly law-related). He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have read and seen. That's distinctly different from saying he did something wrong or illegal or should be in jail or that it would be a public good to ignore.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    > He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have read and seen. Did you read or see something different than what I have read and seen? Or did we read the same stuff but came to completely different conclusions? Would you feel any different if the case had gone forward, had been decided on its merits and the outcome would have been a 'not guilty' verdict?

by jack9 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

> He was probably guilty, they just couldn't get their case together. That's why there is such a thing as a statute of limitations. If you can't get your case together in an X amount of time that is the equivalent of not having a case. So, given that he wasn't convicted, not guilty. You can't say that he probably was guilty and not say that about every other person that ever got acquitted, which is nonsense. So that claim simply does not hold up. I agree with you that the law (or rather, justice) isn't correct and that this goes both ways. So if you are already of that opinion then why negate it after that by saying that he probably was guilty? That's after all what courts are for.

jack9 10y ago
> You can't say that he probably was guilty I can and do, which is not nonsense applied to an infinite amount of theoretical past cases. That's not relevant. Cases aren't assembled just to get a conviction on 20 specific items (http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-the-same-offence.html http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-th...). US justice system is not about truth or even justice, but an amalgamation of concerns and subject to the irregularities of reality (if key witness X has a heart attack and dies, a case Y can fall apart). I'm not subject to these concerns and limitations (which are both historical and societal, without being strictly law-related). He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have read and seen. That's distinctly different from saying he did something wrong or illegal or should be in jail or that it would be a public good to ignore.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > He was probably guilty (in the moral, not legal sense if that's confusing anyone), based on what I have read and seen. Did you read or see something different than what I have read and seen? Or did we read the same stuff but came to completely different conclusions? Would you feel any different if the case had gone forward, had been decided on its merits and the outcome would have been a 'not guilty' verdict?