Yes! There is a God!

I know. It seems strange that he's getting sent up not because of his murders, but for armed robbery. (It was armed robbery, right? I'm too apathetic to look it up.)

I can only imagine he felt invincible after getting away with murder. "You can't convict me! I'm fuckin' OJ Simpson!"

A similar thing happened to me in junior high. During lunch on a snowy day someone threw a snowball and hit the assistant principal in the back of the head. When he turned around he saw my friend and I standing there. He grabbed both of us and hauled us to the office despite our pleas of innocence. We didn't do it a group of high school students driving by threw it from a car. Never the less we were both punished with spanking and detention. This was a public school and I was in 9th grade and they still allowed physical punishment then. I was so pissed off over this that I refused to go to the honors dance they had each year for the most outstanding students at the school. I had the 4th highest grades and test scores in the place.

My mother called and complained and since was an adminstrator at the state hospital she turned loose the state on them. Eventually the asst principal got suspended for a week without pay.

I truly was not a saint but I wasn't stupid enough to do something like that. 

AND THAT is why you don't base your decisions on emotional reactions to a charge like Nacy Gracy or John Walsh. EVIDENCE is the only thing, not blind trust.

Just because something is obvious does not mean it should not go through the same process. Nancy Grace will eventually put someone in jail who doesn't deserve it. But what is worse than that, she is creating a long term society of viglanties. Not in the sense of street violence, but in societle jury pools.

Juries are NOT there to "get even", they are there to asses facts. Nancy is setting up society to get on juries to "get even". If she was concerned about facts, she wouldn't be painting the accused as guilty before they are put on trial. She is about ratings, not honesty.

Your assesment of Peterson most wont understand because you and I are not thinking like laymen using emotions, but thinking long term, Constitutionally as far as evidentuary procedure.

Our "Justice" system is becoming less and less about procedure and quality control, and more McMedia emotional appeal. Our future jury pools are going to be "get even" instead of looking for facts only.

Peterson's own behaivor would indicate that he probiblay did it, BUT, the errosion of procedure and emotional convictions errodes the Constitutuional rights of all citiens if IN ANY CASE, is not followed properly.

It is not about OJ or Peterson or Jackson, it is about getting the facts and getting it right dispite emotions. That long term, protects us all.

Again, what far too many people confuse as far as issues are the following.

1. The nature of the charge....what the person is accused of.

VS

2. Facts that back up the state's case.

Emotionalism only leads to bad quality control. And all one has to do to understand how important quality control is, is to think of a point in one's life, and everyone has had this happen, no matter how minor the issue, everyone has been accused of something they know they did not do.

Peterson's guilt IS NOT the issue. The issue is protecting the system long term by demanding that law enforcement and the courts only seek facts beyond the emotion of a case to insure that no innocent people get convicted.

I tottally agree with you on that. ESPECIALLY DURING THE TRIAL, and not the sentancing phase. If all it amounts to is an emotional tear jerker, having nothing to do with facts, it should be barred.

Otherwise every citen of America could be convicted of merely offending someone.

Law is supposed to be based on provable demonstrable fact, and when you can't prove something, it should not matter one bit what your emotions are.

Agreed. In most localities the prosicution has unlimited funds but the defense is limited. It stacks the deck against the poor.

From what I remember a couple members were black and wanted to acquit him as revenge for the (also unjust) acquital of the cops that beat Rodney King.

Pretty much, keep in mind that the jury was sequestored and that was the last thing they could remember before being separated from the rest of the world. With the racially divided crowds outside the court house and the assertion by the defense that lead investigator was a racist, it is not hard to understand why he was let go. I remember in my 6th grade class the black half of the class stood up and cheered when he was found not guilty. The perception was that this was the one black man who could get the same treatment as white criminals who attack black victims, such as the pigs that beat Rodney King.

This doesn't make OJ not a murderer mind you. Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson didn't beat Rodney King and they weren't members of the LAPD, the largest racist organization in Southern California at the time. But it was that racial hostility that governed the juries verdict.

Nor should there be. That would be even worse than when there was a cutoff for education in voting that was used by whites to disenfranchise blacks in the south.

Actually it's even worse than you think. The people who are on juries are the people that are too stupid to think of a way to get out of jury duty. (granted I have a legitimate physical reason I can't serve on a jury. ) Not counting those who feel the "civic duty" to serve on one and can stand it. I personally think the idea of having "professional juries" would be better - that way we know the people on a jury have half a clue and we don't disrupt the average person's life with jury duty (I actually heard people seriously say they would automatically vote "guilty" for making them serve jury duty or automatically "not guilty" to get back at the prosecution for having to serve if they were picked because having to serve jury duty is so unpleasant. )

And no, Deluded, complete idiots can serve - very few people understand things like DNA evidence and lawyers tend to want to exclude educated people.

Nope. I myself have been called to the witness stand for a murder, and my brother has been called to juror duty. I neither case was the evidence explained to us before we went into the courtroom.

In my case, the crown prosecutor (whom I was a witness for) painstakingly went over courtroom procedure, but I got a very definite feeling throughout the episode that I was intentionally given as little information as possible about the case.