Jump to content
SubSpace Forum Network

Recommended Posts

Posted
shouldn't she be in jail already? i tried looking up for news about her.. rumours say that she's under "house arrest" or something.. wtf. she should seriously go to jail.
Posted
rich people don't go to jail unless they murder someone and are very sloppy about it

jeez isn't that kinda unfair? isn't that discrimination?

 

the government is seriously screwed.

Posted
rich people don't go to jail unless they murder someone and are very sloppy about it

Intellectually dishonest juries are usually to blame. OJ got off because he had a mostly (or completely) black jury and he was black--their mentality was to "stick it to the system" and judge not guilty under any cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. The fear was that white people, out of racial prejudicism, would automatically assume him guilty, using the "jury of peers" argument to support an all-black or nearly all-black jury. Black people have consistently and defiantly chose to judge their black "brothers" as not guilty--they're always innocent in their eyes, even if they did it as they were living under an oppressive, unfair system.

 

However, money can also take part of the credit. Prosecutors are !@#$%^&*igned by the state while defense attorneys are for-hire. The big money is in the latter and thus tends to attract the best, brightest and most determined (and the most greedy, likely). One could make a legitimate case to have both prosecution and defense be mandatorily state !@#$%^&*igned. One could also make a case for a "professional" jury member to have a seat in most trials to help steer the jury.

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
rich people don't go to jail unless they murder someone and are very sloppy about it

Intellectually dishonest juries are usually to blame. OJ got off because he had a mostly (or completely) black jury and he was black--their mentality was to "stick it to the system" and judge not guilty under any cir-*BAD WORD*-stances. The fear was that white people, out of racial prejudicism, would automatically assume him guilty, using the "jury of peers" argument to support an all-black or nearly all-black jury. Black people have consistently and defiantly chose to judge their black "brothers" as not guilty--they're always innocent in their eyes, even if they did it as they were living under an oppressive, unfair system.

 

However, money can also take part of the credit. Prosecutors are !@#$%^&*igned by the state while defense attorneys are for-hire. The big money is in the latter and thus tends to attract the best, brightest and most determined (and the most greedy, likely). One could make a legitimate case to have both prosecution and defense be mandatorily state !@#$%^&*igned. One could also make a case for a "professional" jury member to have a seat in most trials to help steer the jury.

OJ got off because the prosecution (made up of mostly white folks) were jerkoffs who wanted to see a black man pay for marrying a white woman and being married to her when she was killed. Those jerkoffs screwed up with the evidence, which would AT MOST given them a decent argument against OJ. I'd say OJ was innocent to begin with. The White-man dominated media hammered on the fact that his wife was white to make him look guilty.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...