Quote:
Originally posted by Mule
To Steve & Superman: If I'm on a jury & the guy is charged with raping & killing your wife or mom or sister, and it's obvious even to the most brain dead, haight ashbury refugee that the guy did it, do you want me to make a stand on technical issues in the case or convict the guy?
|
If it;'s obvious to even the most brain dead that the accused is guilty of the charge, then guess what happens. Aquitals occur when this standard is not met. Like this week. Let's flip your example around.
Let's say you are accused of raping my family member. And the prosecution shows the jury that you like to jack off, wear lipstick and expose yourself in public. Let's say you keep pet snakes, cross dress and hang out with neo-nazis. Should you be convicted based on that evidence?
Steve (I think) posted a very good illustration of what probably happened. You can call it a "technicality," but in reality MJ was charged with certain CRIMES for which there was insufficient evidence to convict, but not charged with some misdemeanors for which there may have been enough evidence to convict. Again, call it a "technicality," but in my country there are things that a jury lacks the power to decide. They include:
"Your Honor, we find the defendant not guilty of murder as charged, but we are pretty sure that he is guilty of treason, so lock him up."
"Your Honor, we don't have enough evidence to know that the defendant committed the crimes charged, but we think he's creepy and we all feel he probably did it, even though we don't know that with certainty, so we find him guilty."
I chuckled last night as I considered my literature reading, this thread and my remark about Hans Christian Anderson / KKK school of "moral values." You see, I'm reading The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Pretty funny.