Whenever I come across this, I just count it as wish projection.
So let me ask the Brits responding here - what was the reaction in the UK when Neil Entwistle went on trial for the murder of his wife and infant child 8 years ago, also in Massachusetts? Was there the same kind of outcry? If not, why not? Because the evidence against him was so much more clear cut? Because he wasn’t a young woman?
I don’t know if you’re joking, or if you’ve confused the Free Republic with the New Republic, but it’s hardly “respected” or full of “average Americans”. It’s mostly right-wing/conservative propaganda.
Just so you know, judges in Massachusetts aren’t elected. Zobel was practically burned in effigy after letting Woodward go with time served, but he remained on the bench for quite a while before retiring.
'Cos I’ve never heard of him ? Mind you I barely remember the Louise case, about which I felt strongly apathetic at the time.
Excellent. However you still have Martha Coakley.
Yes. It’s common to take the side of “your people” when they’re being tried in a foreign country, especially when the evidence is flimsy and you don’t trust that country’s system.
I just read about the Neil Entwhistle case and it’s not really comparable - the evidence was extremely strong. Also, the British authorities agreed to extradition, so we wouldn’t have much grounds for complaint.
If there was any perception that the “Irish” community wouldn’t give Woodward a fair trial, it must have been really tenny tiny, because I don’t remember it ever being brought up over here. The IRA notwithstanding, we have a pretty good relationship with Ireland and plenty of people of Irish descent live in England too. I know some Americans, particularly back in the nineties, were surprised when I had a lot of Irish friends and there was never any conflict; our cultures are very similar, really, and it just doesn’t cause conflict among ordinary people.
BTW, what lead you to believe that we don’t have innocent before proven guilty? Or religious freedom in prison?
I’m guessing a roundabout way of interpreting the libel laws and then projecting to the rest of the legal system.
Libel isn’t a criminal offence, can’t result in prison time and therefore doesn’t have the presumption of innocence. Nor does any civil affair in any legal system I’ve heard of.
“Shake me like a British nanny!”
-Stewie, The Family Guy
There was an offence of criminal libel in the UK until a few years ago. It would have had the presumption of innocence in that it still had to be proven that the accused actually made the statement alleged to be defamatory. Once that was shown the defendant had the burden of proving their defence (eg truth), but that’s the case with some defences in the US system too (eg, insanity, self-defence).
My take is that it all depends on how the newspapers, and in particular, the ones owned by Rupert Murdoch, react. The suggestion that an attractive young girl is more 'newsworthy, than an ordinary looking guy, is entirely accurate in my view.
Sure, and ditto white rather than black, and middle-class rather than working class, etc.
Which maybe just reminds us of how much 'papers are aware of their demographics, and what and how that audience wants to hear about its own kind.
I did say “roundabout”, my point being that it may well be a skewed way of interpreting it but they got there via that. And can I point to the “then projecting to the rest of the legal system” bit as well?
Basically, I’m not saying it is right, but I can see how someone that has little knowledge of the British legal system could see it that way.
Perhaps that’s it - OP, could you clarify? It’d be pretty tortured reasoning though, especially since it would be such an extreme difference between the UK and US systems that you’d think it would be wise to check before telling everyone it’s true and using it to pass judgment.
I think the OP was just saying that people shouldn’t worry about the US justice system because of the presumption of innocence, not that it doesn’t exist outside the US. Mind you, that’s an equally questionable suggestion.
He gave it as an example of rights you have in the US but we don’t in the UK.
I don’t think so; he began the thought that way, and gave the right to silence as an example of things we have but you don 't. Then he started talking about other, unrelated things (our prison system’s religious freedoms and the presumption of innocence.)
Certainly the paragraph is not a model of clarity. For that matter, the entire OP is a bit of a mess.
I’m not sure how you can parse it that way, I’m afraid. We have a few rights they don’t. I know there’s this one. And this one. And this one. I could go on and on. If the last “and” doesn’t introduce another example, then he wouldn’t have finished with “I could go on and on.”
This thread becomes even more relevant since Woodward had a baby last year. I hope for the baby’s sake Woodward was innocent.
Or refrormed. Not all baby killers repeat their worst acts.
Right, because having shaken a baby once (if she did), with catastrophic consequences, there is absolutely no chance that she would be able to restrain herself from doing it again. :rolleyes: : proper rolleyes: