Quote:
Originally posted by epchick
Ah, but how long did Martha Stuart really stay in jail? She was supposed to stay, what 6 months or so, but she didn't stay that long. And now she's under "house arrest." Bullshit too.
If it had been any other rich person that did what Martha Stuart did, they would have been found guilty..point blank and sentenced longer than 6 months. Martha got off easy...just because of who she is.
You can't tell me that Michael Jackson was innocent. There is NO way in hell i'll believe that unless my Lord, Jesus Christ comes down from heaven and tells it to me face to face. There is something wrong when a grown ass man will share his bed with little children. It is NOT natural.
|
Wow. Just wow. It amazes me when people who have no understanding of the criminal justice system get all indignant about a particular case. Do you even know how it works?
To use Illinois as an example -- if you're sentenced to two years, in most cases, "good time" applies and you're actually going to end up doing one year, because "good time" means each day counts for two or your time gets cut in half right off the bat, whichever way you want to look at it. There is also something called "governor's good time" which cuts more time off the sentence. Long story short, most people sentenced to two years end up doing about two months, maybe a little more. Unless you've murdered someone or have done something really awful, you never, ever do the full sentence.
"House arrest," or as we called it "electronic home monitoring (EHM)" is quite common. It's an effective way to monitor people who have already been sentenced or who are awaiting trial, considering that almost all of our jails and prisons are ridiculously overcrowded. If someone is not a violent, dangerous criminal or a flight risk, EHM is always an option. When I had clients on EHM, they had to pay $$ for it as well. I'm not sure how that's bullshit.
I'm also not sure what your Lord, Jesus Christ, has to do with the criminal justice system. That doesn't really make sense at all. If you think Michael Jackson's behavior is not natural or that it's wrong, good for you. That's great. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the state, in this particular case, was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson molested this particular child. If the state did not make its case, the jury is obligated to find him not guilty (which is not the same thing as innocent), no matter what you or your Lord thinks about it.
Hybrid Mode
