Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
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' . . .
|
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.
Threaded Mode