Yours, then, is quite simply wrong.

The rule is clear: the onus is on the prosecution to prove the case, and the defendants (who have not yet even been charged) operate under the presumption of innocence.

There is no need to 'decide either way' if there's limited evidence - it's pretty clear which 'way' you should 'decide' . . .

well you can f off.

and rudey, so can you.

I recognize that there are so many other factors to life that make our dreams come true, and our work is just a small part. You can be self-centered and darwinistic if you like, but realize your view is just that.

I second that - luck had nothing to do with where I am today, and it won't have anything to do with where I am in the future.

Also, we're talking about labeling a group of people as "rapists" here; it may be wise to to stick with that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

I guess we'll disagree on this one then.

I can make a personal decision any time I want to. It doesn't matter to anyone but me in the long run, but it is mine to make all the same. My point is that I don't know enough yet to make that decision.

Presuming a person is innocent does not make it so -- nor does presuming guilt.

Proving the later is up to the prosecutor and the final decision on whether he has proven it is up to the jury if charges are brought and the case goes to trial. What I believe makes no difference in the end, but again, everyone is entilted to an opinion and to share and argue it.

I think that's true. In many jobs (maybe not all), things like being in the right place at the right time or having met the right people somewhere along the line can open a lot of doors.

On the other hand, a piece of bad luck can sometimes ruin what might have been a great career.

Few people become "great" without hard work, but luck often helps.

At least that's my experience.

What are you talking about? Listen it's OK if you got through the system on luck and others feeling sorry for you. I didn't and your sorry ass remarks are self-centered since you try and push your ridiculous belief on me and think that's the actuality.

I knew a girl that didn't even take the SATs and got into Stanford and she was a 2 time Olympic athlete. She earned it by making money for the school through the athletic program. I hope for your sake you had something to bring to the table.

-Rudey

Presuming someone is innocent does make it so to the person presuming it.

Can I randomly call someone in here a rapist and then all of a sudden they might be a rapist without any evidence? I mean so what if the DNA evidence says I'm wrong.

-Rudey

You think that our justice system and the media operate under the same guidelines???

In a perfect world, maybe. In the real world, people are going to jump to conclusions based on prejudice. The lines were drawn in the sand before the story even broke, people lined up according to their prejudices -- racial, classist, etc.

If that weren't true, jury selection would be done by picking names out of a hat. The system hopes that by selecting 12 people with the input of both attorneys that the prejudices of those jurors will be balanced out.

I haven't taken a survey or anything, but I'm guessing that there's a fair chance that most of the people who already seem to know that this girl is telling the truth also seem to know that O.J. is innocent.

I don't believe in luck. Someone isn't going to luck into becoming a basketball star, nor is someone going to luck into producing a literary work.

I think it has more to do with having knowledge that you worked hard to gain and applying it in a beneficial time.

So what are you saying, exactly?

Thanks for the lesson on prejudice and pre-trial publicity, KT, but that's literally what I deal with every day of the week in my professional life - the media can (and does) do whatever it wants, but that does not at all make it correct or consistent with the instructions and rules of the court.

That's why attitudes like Delt's are so dangerous - if he's doing it, that means most of the jury pool is as well. And believe me - no matter how the case proceeds, two things are certain: it will be nearly impossible to kick stealth jurors for cause, and the prosecutor will certainly know how to scream "BATSON!" at the top of his lungs. This point relates to the below:

LOLOLOLOLOL

Again, with regard to the concept (or, perhaps, the ideal?) of voir dire, you're essentially correct ('balance' is probably less correct, but more realistic, than the ideal), but my point was relating more to discussion and the concept of guilt, rather than specific application to the court.

The media generally is not bound by the rules of the court. You know that though.

As for DA's attitude, is it dangerous? Maybe. Most people jump to conclusions with no evidence to base those conclusions on. That state of mind is only "dangerous" if people aren't open to changing their position when presented with new evidence.

I'm saying that the issue has already been decided by most in their own minds based upon their personal prejudices.

I would expect a criminal trial to never even take shape. From what I have heard, it would be extremely detrimental to the DA's career if he continued to push for one.....mainly because he asserted rape and claimed he had solid evidence. Civil Trial maybe though.

Presuming someone innocent doesn't mean they are innocent -- it means they must be treated (by the law, not necessarily by public opinion) as though they are innocent, even if they are in fact guilty.