Minor pitting: People, courts don't make truth

[Boyo_Jim]

@kung fu lola

Some of the jurors were interviewed on Oprah, and at least one of them admitted that they did not consider the DNA evidence at all, because they “didn’t really understand it”.

The ones who spoke out also voiced their belief that evidence was planted at the scene. Doesn’t everyone find those paranoid theories ridiculous now?

While at the time I thought OJ was guilty (and I still do), I also thought that the verdict was justified (and I still do) after Fuhrman began taking the 5th on the witness stand. Really, what more reasonable doubt do you need than the lead investigator of the crime caught perjuring himself on the stand before your eyes?

[Banquet_Bear]

@kung fu lola

Some of the jurors were interviewed on Oprah, and at least one of them admitted that they did not consider the DNA evidence at all, because they “didn’t really understand it”.

…can you provide a transcript so we can understand this particular jurors alleged statement in context? I have searched for you quote in relation to the juror’s alleged comment and cannot find anything. That would be appreciated, thanks.

The ones who spoke out also voiced their belief that evidence was planted at the scene. Doesn’t everyone find those paranoid theories ridiculous now?

…well, I suppose that now, after nearly 12 years of opportunity to pour over the evidence (including lots of stuff not included at trial) it could be very easy to see these theories as ridiculous.

But as an exercise in critical thinking, looking at the evidence presented at trial, what convinces you that some of the evidence wasn’t tampered with, mishandled or planted?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

Well, the courts do decide truth and fiction. Moreover, it isn’t the officers of the court who do this, but the jury–twelve ordinary citizens from off the street. It may not be a perfect system, but the fact that a unanimous verdict is required seems to eliminate most of the risk of a capricious or ill-advised verdict.

With the O.J. Simpson case, I admit that seems a miscarriage of justice pure and simple. I don’t care where the jurors lived or what their ethnicity was, I can’t conceive how he got off.

[smiling_bandit]

@Dinsdale

I’m not sure I understand this. First, I think it is difficult to condemn the entire judicial system based on a single (or few) high profile cases.

It’s not just one case or a hundred cases. The system is not set up to produce justice in any form, except by accident. It’s intended to keep us from all killing each other. Nothing more or less. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Second, I’m not sure OJ got off “scott-free.” He does have a substantial civil penalty hanging over his head, and essentially lost his potential for future earnings based on his celebrity.

So his punishment is moderately reduced income. Yippee.

[Clothahump]

@Jubilant

In Scotland, part of The Remaining British Isles, they have a verdict called “Not Proven”.
Which means “We have probably just let a cutthroat go, but the system isn’t perfect.”

And, oh do I ever wish we would adopt that into our system here in the USA.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Jubilant

In Scotland, part of The Remaining British Isles, they have a verdict called “Not Proven”.
Which means “We have probably just let a cutthroat go, but the system isn’t perfect.”

How is this different from “Not guilty”? Which is different from “innocent” as was discussed in other posts.

[Frank]

@Boyo Jim

How is this different from “Not guilty”? Which is different from “innocent” as was discussed in other posts.

We think he’s guilty, but you didn’t prove it. Not guilty doesn’t allow for that gradation.

ETA: Legally, of course, there’s no difference.