That isn't necessarily the truth. There are plenty of good attorneys that do plenty of pro bono work. And it is also like anything else, you get what you pay for.

THIS.
It's so frustrating. A two year old! I'm sorry, but I wish they would do away with him, now. Today.

Many of the people that have been cleared were initially convicted because "the evidence was there." There's always room for human error.

How does his death fix anything?

I agree with "you get what you pay for"...most of the time, but you know as well as I do, if it was you or me being chased by a million police cars on the freeway, doing 30 mph, you know they wouldn't have let us drive until we decided to stop. But because it was OJ, it was handled differently. That's Bullcrap and you know it!

True. But wasn't there a guy who was in prison for like 20 years or something, and they just released him this year? He said DNA testing helped him. I think it happened in Cleveland. To my knowledge, the technology wasn't around back then.

I was young when this trial was going on, so I don't remember all the details. IIRC, though, if disabling the vehicle puts people at risk, they're not going to do it.

Actually they would have done the same. IF somebody refuses to stop, what would they do? I don't believe he was treated any differently because of his fame. I do agree that there are cases where people are treated differently that I hate, but it's not as common as you are implying.

Right. So if he wasn't put on death row, an innocent man would have been executed.

Sure, our technology is advanced these days, but 1) there's always room for human error and 2) there is inevitably going to be better technology that's released that will make the "air-tight" methods of today obsolete.

I was 11 when it happened, and I remember most of it. I agree with you to an extent. But knight_shadow, if it were you, how long do you think your trial would have lasted? Do you think you would've gotten the same treatment OJ received?

I disagree. If you're famous, and you have money, you get better treatment, and more likely than not, you get off, and that's part of what's so frustrating, to me. Though I don't believe MJ molested those children, if that you were you, even if you didn't do it, you'd be in prison.

What about the guy who murdered his two year old?

Are you back on the original topic?

What if (big what if) it's discovered that his confession was a result of coercion? Again, an innocent man will have been executed.

That chase was on a freeway, IIRC. They weren't going to disable the car because it could have caused harm to other vehicles/passengers.

I don't get how someone disagrees with due process, though. I mean... that's not "just" law - it's the Constitution.

That makes sense, and I really can't respond to that. But, I still think he did it.

This. Due Process is part of the law of the land. CG do you have any idea of the types of abuses in the English justice system that led to the Due Process Clause being added?

I'm not really connecting the dots here.

I don't understand how this incident is comparable to the OJ incident.

So do you disagree with due process? Why? Not why do you disagree with the money or the plea bargains (as you wrote earlier), but why do you disagree with the principle of due process?

I agree with due process. After MC explained it to me why it's important, I agreed with him. However, there are still some things I don't agree with. What I don't agree with is the way death row is handled in "some" cases. And I don't agree with how the rich vs the poor are treated. I also don't agree with parole (depending on the crime).

Again, what do you think would happen to you if you were in MJ's shoes? Do you think you would've gotten off?

It's not related to OJ's case. I just brought that up as an ex of how the treatment isn't the same. Plus, I think it about money a lot of times.

I don't disagree with due process. I just don't see the point for death row in some cases.

Honestly I don't know. BUT that is the nature of jury of one's peers. I'm sure his fame influenced the jury somehow, but there is nothing that can be done about that. And what do you dislike about death row? It is just an expansion of Due Process. Death is rather permanent, so they are of course going to be ultra sure the person deserves death and in fact committed the crime.

Who would be the person deciding whether or not "those" cases required due process? That's why everyone -- including criminals -- is protected by the same rights.

And the MJ case is a whole different can of worms -- not even gonna touch on that one.

I'll answer it for you. If you were in MJ's shoes, you would be in prison, right now. And honestly, I think you know you would be in prison, too. Why? Because you don't have millions of dollars to get you off.

I agree, and I agree with knight_shadow also, but there are some cases where I don't think it should take that long to put someone out of their misery. Like the DC sniper. I just don't get why he was on death row for 7 years. Everyone knew he did it. They caught him pretty much red handed.

They're protected by the same rights, but not everyone is treated the same way in similar cases. I agree with most of what you're saying, but I can't agree the money part of it, which is why I brought up MJ and OJ.

Nice job there "Do you know what would have happened?" "Let me TELL you the answer to my own question."

Your lack of understanding about the law, the appeals process and pretty much everything around that is why you don't "get" it. And the only way to fix that is to educate yourself. For every DC sniper who we "know" did it, there are a dozen other people who are convicted under more circumstantial evidence. You give all of them the same access to appeals.

That's not what you were initially talking about. You were talking about killing the accused without a trial or without putting them on death row, in some cases. My point was that someone would have to determine when a certain case is one of "those cases," and there are a lot of problems that go along with that.

But the "money part" isn't exclusive to the justice system. There are many industries in which having more money will benefit you.

As an aside, when you talk about the "white trash" folks that shop at Wal-mart and Subway, aren't you treating them differently because of their income levels? Just something to think about.

Sorry, but I don't buy that. We've had this discussion enough that I think it's more than venting.

And even if this assertion has some truth to it, it relates to Constitutional rights in general, or to an incident involving an illegal alien -- someone I'm willing to bet has neither fame nor money -- how? If your problem is that those with money get off easier (or completely), then why this about the guy in this case:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek (Post 1949180) Wow, another piece of garbage protected by America's crappy justice system. $$$$$$$ eta: and he'll even get an attorney to represent him in court, even though the evidence is there that he did this to that child. More money wasted on garbage. And I'm sure he'll be able to plead something stupid. Only in America where the criminal is protected.:rolleyes:

Sorry. OJ's case doesn't support this post. At all.

This.

How can you say you agree with due process but then say that, in cases like this, we should just go ahead an execute someone? I believe your exact words were "why can't they just do away with him right now. Today."

That's selective due process -- some people are entitled to it and some people aren't. And it's a dangerous idea. Somebody just might decide that you are one of the people who is not entitled to it.

I think they should get a trial. I just don't think they should be on death row as long as some people have if all of the evidence is there.

Huh? I used to eat at Subway. I never said anything about Subway, except for the name and I've always done that. I didn't mean anything by it. And no, I don't like Walmart. There's just certain people I don't like to be around, and I never said anything about race or anyone's income level. I said I have a problem with people taking advantage of the welfare system. And this doesn't have anything to with what we were discussing.

o.k. MC, in the sniper shooting, what was the point of him being on death row for 7 years?

Trials also require money.

And, again, people aren't infallible. If someone incorrectly collects DNA samples and it results in a faulty conviction, should the accused still be put to death immediately? Even though it's tainted, the evidence is there.

I'm not sure how your dislike of Wal-Mart relates to welfare. Either way, people that are on welfare are from a certain income/social standing, so you're indirectly treating people of varied income levels differently.

True with the first part.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with Walmart. You said "income levels", I wasn't connecting that to Walmart. I just don't like Walmart, period. And yes, if someone is taking advantage of the welfare system, I do have issues with that. It's when people keep having more kids when they can't afford the ones they have.

So, tax money will be spent on these people, period. Putting them to death quickly doesn't make someone a free (in the monetary sense) criminal.

This is going on a different tangent, so let's just cut this part and focus on the topic at hand :)

and how about the times you made fun of people who worked there..."how hard is it to put meat between 2 pieces of bread?" and calling them 'sandwich artists.'

Well that is what they are officially called.

Really if we're going to look at the depths of the "looking down her nose at people" how about the "Online dating means you're ugly"

I honestly don't know why Walmart and race (which I've never said anything about) was brought up in the first place. Really, I don't. But okay, back on topic.

Putting them to death saves the tax payer money, though. I mean, it cost more to keep them in prison than it does to just do away with them. But since you brought up DNA evidence being tainted, then yeah, I agree with you and MC about that, and I wouldn't be able to live with myself putting someone to death who didn't do the crime. I just wish money/fame wasn't a major factor, because it really is to an extent. I think it is.

Ehh, it was brought up for a reason, but nevermind.

As far as the second paragraph, what about these people:
- Roman Polanski
- T.I.
- Lil Wayne
- Martha Stewart
- Michael Vick
- Bernard Madoff

All of these people have fame, money, or both, but all served time (or are/will be serving time) for the crimes they've committed.

ETA: And race wasn't brought up, at least not by me.

It says "sandwich artist" on their name tag. And no, there isn't anything hard about making a sandwich. What about the time you called me an "asshat" for posting a thread about astronomy, come to find out it's an interest of yours, too. "I've always had an interest in planets, I just don't like physics."--whatever!

Well, I'm living proof of that last one :)

Well you said that I said "white trash". The only time I've ever debated about race on here was when I was trying to prove a point to "madmax" ( I realize now that was pointless chatting with him/her) that it's based on the individual person not an entire race of people. But let's just drop it, knight_shadow, okay?

I don't know anything about Little Wayne. I don't even know who he is.

But Martha Stewart only got 5 months, right? How long do you think someone like me would've gotten for doing what she did? I'm not even gonna talk about Michael Vick, because I'm just gonna get upset talking about him.

eta: who's T.I.?

WTF kind of Texan cares about the World Cup?

Also, Roman Polanski lived a pretty damn nice life for a pretty damn long time. The worst thing was that he couldn't come back to the U.S. - but considering her was never shunned in the film community and people went to Europe to work with him, that's really not much of a strain. His getting a sentence now is comparable to the KKK members who got sentenced for their crimes in the 40s and 50s about 2.5 seconds before they died - after living full lives with very little consequence.

I swear to god if one more person says "Well it's been so long. And the victim wants it dropped. And well he had to live all the way in EUROPE, in EXILE and never go to the OSCARS." about Roman Polanski I'm going to stab them with my keyboard.

Because you know, all he did was drug and rape a teenager.