Fuck our Justice System

[Farley4Fan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43636855/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Just hours after the 4th of July ends, just hours after the peak of our patriotism, hours after the fireworks and bombs finally end, a bomshell is dropped on our hearts and minds.

I know all about the OJ case, but I wasn't alive for it so it never hit me as hard as this one.  This one destroyed any sense of faith I had remaining in our justice system - there wasn't that much left - less than half a day after I was screaming "USA" in the streets downtown.

To find her "not guilty" of even child abuse (she didn't report her own daughter missing for 31 days, and was spotted partying after the report was finally filed) is absurd.  They found her guilty of lying to investigators, but apparently lying to investigators isn't enough to prove that she's a liar. 

So, yeah, patriotism is shunted at least for another 364 days.  We may have a better system than most countries but in the end the good ole USA is made out of the same humans as the rest of the world's countries.  I celebrated our independence, and then laughed in its face, all in a matter of hours.  I'm a little emotional to say the least.

What kind of country is this where a mom can get away with killing her daughter but can't get away with lying to investigators? 

Stunned.  It may only hit me this hard because it was so unexpected.  All reports told me that she was screwed from every way possible, like a fucking 14 person gang bang.  She comes out a virgin.

[DreadStunLock]

Don't they do those health checks where they check for tissues of sperm and etc?


(At first, I thought you meant the Karma system >.<)

[frvge]

The USA thinks it can claim .com domain names from people in other countries running websites in those contries that are legal in those countries and that are hosted on servers in those countries. The only link is the .com domain name. Lame.

[DreadStunLock]

The USA thinks it can claim .com domain names from people in other countries running websites in those contries that are legal in those countries and that are hosted on servers in those countries. The only link is the .com domain name. Lame.

WHAT THE FUCK!? Say it again, without countries!?

[frvge]

Example: If you run a (legal poker website/insert random other thing that's apparently not allowed in the USA) in (Spain/insert other country) on a .com domain then the USA can claim the domain name.

[CurdyMilk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43636855/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
To find her "not guilty" of even child abuse (she didn't report her own daughter missing for 31 days, and was spotted partying after the report was finally filed) is absurd.  They found her guilty of lying to investigators, but apparently lying to investigators isn't enough to prove that she's a liar. 

Stunned.  It may only hit me this hard because it was so unexpected.  All reports told me that she was screwed from every way possible, like a fucking 14 person gang bang.  She comes out a virgin.

yep...we should have been on the jury to screw it over.  but then we would be sequestered for a long time.   :o :o :o

[Zedblade]

I'd rather have courts and juries decide on a verdict based on evidence, not useless bullshit emotions and 'gut' feelings. I haven't really heard about any of this until recently, but from I've read the physical evidence wasn't there and everything the prosecution had was circumstantial at best

[NeoSuperior]

Well to change anything, you would have to remove the rule of "someone is innocent until it is proven otherwise". You would have to change it to "Anyone suspicious, is (potentially) guilty, until he is proven innocent". If that happens, there will be more trials with a "guilty" at the end...

However then you would also have more innocent people, that go to jail, although they didn't commit the crime...
So choose:

Sacrifice some innocent people, to bring justice to more murderers,
or
let some murderers go, to save innocent people from going to prison/getting death sentence.


Which of these do you think is more important?

[Cronky]

I'd rather have courts and juries decide on a verdict based on evidence, not useless bullshit emotions and 'gut' feelings. I haven't really heard about any of this until recently, but from I've read the physical evidence wasn't there and everything the prosecution had was circumstantial at best

I'm getting a strong LA Noire vibe from this.

[Farley4Fan]

I'd rather have courts and juries decide on a verdict based on evidence, not useless bullshit emotions and 'gut' feelings. I haven't really heard about any of this until recently, but from I've read the physical evidence wasn't there and everything the prosecution had was circumstantial at best

I agree Zed.  But then I look back at the Peterson case and the lack of "real evidence" against him. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson#Evidence

The dude got the death penalty and is currently on death row.  The lack of an alibi, a presence of motives, and a surplus of lies (all present in the Anthony case) is what got him the chair.  This is what I call soft evidence, and a ton of it can turn hard quickly (I have a problem talking without double entendre).  The fact that one jury can fall head over heels for soft evidence and another one cannot is kinda fucked up.  Inconsistency is the worst thing you can possibly have in a "Justus" system (see what i did there?). 

Is it because Casey Anthony cried the whole 3 years the investigation went on and played the pity party?  Maybe.  But then, if this jury was a compassionate one how did they not see the pictures of little Caylee and lay the hammer down on someone who obviously neglects her daughter?  She was responsible for her daughter's death, whether directly or not, and should get some sort of punishment. 

Instead we are treated to the sight of a monster of a woman, mother, human, drinking with the defense and celebrating her Not-guiltiness.  This is the 2nd time I've seen her partying since her daughter's death, and not once have I heard her express true sadness for her daughter.  She's expressed sadness for her own situation but not her daughter. 

[Bubbaganoosh]

You blame the justice system when you should be blaming the lawyers for things like this.
All a lawyer has to do is plant one seed of reasonable doubt in the jury and they can't
convict. They double talk and confuse the jury with smoke and mirrors and when it comes
time to deliberate they can't get past reasonable doubt.

[Wh1tE_Dw4rF]

Speaking of Casey Anthony, here are some evidence pictures.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/slideshow/casey-anthony-trial-evidence-photos-13724467

[Farley4Fan]

You blame the justice system when you should be blaming the lawyers for things like this.
All a lawyer has to do is plant one seed of reasonable doubt in the jury and they can't
convict. They double talk and confuse the jury with smoke and mirrors and when it comes
time to deliberate they can't get past reasonable doubt.

Lawyers are part of the whole justice system, as is the concept of reasonable doubt.  I guess it would be more fair to point the finger at the lawyers in this particular case but then I think of consistency.  It's strikingly similar to the Scott Peterson case, and yet you get completely opposite results based on what?  A roll of the dice on the jury?  The fact that the justic system - as a whole - can produce different results for similar cases without much explanation why, it leads to criticism that I think is well justified.

I guess one could say I'm being pessimistic and that I should be thankful we aren't doing things like the Salem witch trials anymore, but when a killer/liar walks away and parties because of some exploits in the system it makes me a little sick.

[Spekkio]

Let me get this straight...

There is a dead girl with no forensic evidence to support how she died, no forensic evidence to support she was actually murdered, and even if there was, no forensic evidence to support that Casey Anthony did the killing. Yet you are upset that the jury acquitted the defendant of murder?

The only thing that the prosecution proved is that this lady is a bad mother. For better or worse, that's not against the law.

This is proof that our justice system is working as it is supposed to. Yes, there is a dead girl. Yes, someone is to blame for it, but we can't prove who. That's ultimately the part that gets people all emotional about it -- there's a dead girl and goddamnit, it's someone's fault! In a somewhat similar fashion as OJ, the defendant was able to get acquitted without successfully blaming another actual person, which is a large reason why people have a hard time stomaching the result. However, unlike the OJ case, there wasn't any hard evidence to support the claim that she killed the child.

Also, what if this woman is actually innocent? She just lost 3 years of her life to the justice system while she went through a gut wrenching trial. Her reward is going to be people who shun her and assume she is guilty anyway. She won't be able to find employment anytime soon, if ever, her relationship with her parents is probably ruined, and she no longer has her child.

As far as cross-comparing cases, our justice system ensures that you have a trial by your peers. That is naturally going to breed inconsistency in results. A jury from AZ is going to have different values and different expectations of behavior than a jury from NJ. The two places are also going to have different laws, and similar laws are likely to be worded differently.

For every case of someone being wrongfully acquitted, there are a lot more where the person was wrongfully convicted, especially if you factor in coercive confessions and plea bargains out of fear of trial.

[Zedblade]

Let me get this straight...

There is a dead girl with no forensic evidence to support how she died, no forensic evidence to support she was actually murdered, and even if there was, no forensic evidence to support that Casey Anthony did the killing. Yet you are upset that the jury acquitted the defendant of murder?

The only thing that the prosecution proved is that this lady is a bad mother. For better or worse, that's not against the law.

This is proof that our justice system is working as it is supposed to. Yes, there is a dead girl. Yes, someone is to blame for it, but we can't prove who. That's ultimately the part that gets people all emotional about it -- there's a dead girl and goddamnit, it's someone's fault! In a somewhat similar fashion as OJ, the defendant was able to get acquitted without successfully blaming another actual person, which is a large reason why people have a hard time stomaching the result. However, unlike the OJ case, there wasn't any hard evidence to support the claim that she killed the child.

Also, what if this woman is actually innocent? She just lost 3 years of her life to the justice system while she went through a gut wrenching trial. Her reward is going to be people who shun her and assume she is guilty anyway. She won't be able to find employment anytime soon, if ever, her relationship with her parents is probably ruined, and she no longer has her child.

As far as cross-comparing cases, our justice system ensures that you have a trial by your peers. That is naturally going to breed inconsistency in results. A jury from AZ is going to have different values and different expectations of behavior than a jury from NJ. The two places are also going to have different laws, and similar laws are likely to be worded differently.

For every case of someone being wrongfully acquitted, there are a lot more where the person was wrongfully convicted, especially if you factor in coercive confessions and plea bargains out of fear of trial.

QFE