Jackson Verdict

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

errrrr???

how many exactly are 'unjust'?

What, in the world (for the person I was replying to is in a different country to myself)? Quite a few, I suspect.

[Alki]

a 5 minute gap is ur proof top notch

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by s|k

Now that was pathetic. I have my ups and downs.

yeah.

'that' was pathetic.

this time.

this time you'll show them. you'll show all of them !!!!!!

especially the ones in your head.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you damn kids!!!! (shakes fist)

I said something quite similar to this earlier in the night.


Btw, can we keep the noise down in this thread? Cheers.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by s|k

Jump me

Fruitbat oracle.

Noone is forcing you to read this thread. You're not participating in a discussion relating in any way to the actual topical discussion, or its spinoff. Therefore, the only person who's wasting your time is YOU because you are only here through direct, active, choice.

[s|k]

In my defense, I have to say that if any of you thought better of me, then that's your own fault. :0

[Ärketrollmannen]

Originally Posted by dda

In the eyes of the law, yes. For the jury at the begining of the trial, yes. However, if I had any doubt personally, I would dismiss the case. Can and would do that.

Why?

The point of the trial is to establish wether or not he did it, and if he did it, what sentence he should receive, right?

You have to ARGUE that he did it, but you don't have to believe it do you? If you have doubts (bordering "reasonable") then you don't have to drop it do you?

If you are convinced that he didn't do it then obviously you should drop it.

BTW: Why is it so sure that he did it, is there a heap of physical evidence?

[dda]

Originally Posted by Ärketrollmannen

The point of the trial is to establish wether or not he did it, and if he did it, what sentence he should receive, right?

The idea of a trial is to convince 12 citizens who have no personal stake in the case of its correctness. This has to be done with admissible evidence. There may be evidence which could be very persuasive but which is irrelevant legally. Evidence of a persons character for example. I see all of the evidence including the inadmissible thus my perspective may be skewed and it is and should be left to the jury.

Originally Posted by Arketrollmannen

You have to ARGUE that he did it, but you don't have to believe it do you? If you have doubts (bordering "reasonable") then you don't have to drop it do you?

Technically, I don;'t have to believe in guilt to present the case to the jury. However, if knowing even more than the jury will ever be told is not enough to convince me then it is unlikely that I could convince the jury. Also, there is a different ethical duty on a prosecutor than on a defense attorney in criminal matters. While a defense attorney is supposed to do the best for his client that he can under the circumstances, including getting him off, he has this obligation even if he thinks his client is guilty because if the government is going to charge someone and wants to take their liberty away then the government has to prove its case without breaking its own rules. The prosecutor, in my opinion, should never put himself/herself in a position where he isn't sure whether or not he is trying to take the liberty from an innocent man. To me, the "its better for 99 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to lose his liberty" is something which is correct and to be taken seriously. In my job winning really isn't everything.

Originally Posted by Arketrollmannen

BTW: Why is it so sure that he did it, is there a heap of physical evidence?

8 year old eyewitness who saw him do it. Saw him drag his father down the stairs to the kitchen. The fact that there were only 3 people in the house and the 8 year old wan't capable of doing it. 8 year old told teenage sister who was down the street immediately and the police were called. Police responded in minutes. Defendant was coming out of the house covered with the victim's blood. Defendant's fingerprints on the axe. Statements of the defendant. The real question is how badly deranged he is. He knows right from wrong so he won't escape punishment but a jury's view of how capable he was of forming proper intent and state of mind will determine degree of crime.