Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig188
well, having just served time on a jury not long ago.....they told us to talk over everything-after the case is handed over of course...like they said, we each might miss something, or hear something others didn't. then you have your own knowledge to go on as well. etc etc.
if the guy is guilty as hell, and i believe he is 100%, then they did the right thing by finding him guilty.
|
Well, lets see if I can get in trouble here....I have never publically stated whether I believe OJ to be guilty, I have said I think Peterson did kill his wife and baby. I won't give a personal opinion on OJ because he was found "not guilty" by the jury therefore my opinion is worthless and meaningless. Peterson having been convicted I believe frees me to say I question the verdict. It would have been difficult for me to vote "guilty" had I been on the Peterson jury cause I agree that the evidence was convincing but short of conclusive...so I am not comfortable that the jury reached the correct verdict. In the OJ case, my problem is Furman...a racist cop who admitted he'd gladly falsify evidence against a black man handling key evidence in the case...in all honesty, I don't think I would have voted differently from the jury. I think for our system of justice to work...for a jury to "do the right thing", they have to vote based solely on the evidence presented, so...in my opinion..the right thing for the jury is determined by the evidence presented, not the actual guilt or innocense of the accused. When a person's fate is to be determined, what someone "knows" or assumes doesn't matter...
02-02-2007, 09:15 PM
Hybrid Mode
