.
There doesn't always have to be a guilty party just because there is a trial.
An unbiased decision made purely on the cases and arguments put forward by both the defense and prosecution with the letter of the law factored in. Does that mean it always comes to the correct decision? The answer is no.
Fair depends on all relevant information being presented
and all points of relevant law being clearly argued.
It also depends on appointing unbiased jurors and judges,
and keeping corruption out of the system.
There is no way to get it perfect -
but having a good set of laws based on sound principles
and conditions for rights of appeal
can assist in mitigating errors.
Hello Rosie:
In the abstract, you're right.. But, it doesn't happen in every case. I suppose, because it doesn't, I COULD say that our system is corrupt and a failure. But, it isn't, so I won't.. Think macro, not micro..
Look. I don't LIKE government.. The Executive branch is BROKEN.. The Legislative branch is BROKEN. The only branch that ISN'T broken, is the Judicial branch..
excon
You did not answer the question I asked char.
True. Take the OJ Simpson case for example OR all the cops who killed unarmed black men because they "feared for their lives". Disgusting. Thank you for your reply RR and Happy Saturday! :)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply hartfire! :)
Oh excon. How can you say that? THE SUPREMES gutted the civil rights act and allowed Citizens United to exist. If that isn't broken I don't know what is. Add to that all the judges that are corrupt because of politics. And the juries who don't ever charge a cop who killed an unarmed black man with murder. And the lawyers who omit evidence they discover that would either clear the opposition or nail their client. Or the judges that allow illegal voting restrictions to stand. I think the judicial system is as corrupt as they come. I'm sure there are people involved who are honorable and honest and have the highest level of integrity. Whether there are more of them or more of the corrupt ones I
cannot say. Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)
Hello again, Rosie:
I did NOT say that I agreed with their decisions.. I simply said that the method with which they arrived at their decisions is NOT broken...
excon
Okay. What method is that excon? I'm not being a smarta**. I'm serious. What method is consistently employed that you believe is intact?
. Thank you for your reply m'dear! :)
Hello again, Rosie:
The METHOD is simply applying the law. With rare exceptions, I believe across the board, judges apply the law as they read it. I do NOT believe that people who read the law differently than I do, are inherently IMMORAL. Look.. You and I read the law differently on this very issue, and I don't question your morality.. Would I win an argument with you if I did??? No, I wouldn't. The ONLY way I could possibly win, would be to politely argue MY reading of the law. That's something you and I do here all the time.. Most times you agree with me. Sometimes, you don't..
excon
I guess I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to strangers as I do to you and you do to me. Which means I am being unfair here. Okay my friend. I am going to read your response
here again and hopefully it will sink in. Thanks for hanging in. AGAIN! I know. That's what friends are for, right? :) ((hugs))
"Fair" means recognizing if there actually is a guilty party. "Fair" means the defendant is NOT guilty until proven innocent. I did answer your question, but not with the answer you were looking for.
Therein lies the problem. It's not about my personal sense of what is just or what my own definition of fairness might be. Before I became involved in the judicial system, I had a naive and incorrect view of the system and how it works. Like many, I viewed the courts in a more idealistic perspective. Many in the general public believe that if the courts want to administer justice, they will line up with one's personal sense of what is right. The laws as written do not always line up with our own viewpoints. You can feel that you're right and have the weight of law working against you. Juries are always charged with what the law states in every case before deliberation. The evidence must be weighed within that context and not how my emotions, opinions or preconceived notions come into play. In a perfect world, your premise would be the hoped for outcome or result. Sometimes we do receive justice, but often the results of trials have been through a process of plea bargains, deals and pretrial arrangements. It's an imperfect system, yet it has more protections built into it than many other systems in the world. There are not many places where you can be obviously guilty and yet receive the benefit of a thorough hearing and trial, complete with appeals as long as you the defendant believe you're not guilty and plead accordingly.
Hello PP:
Juries are always charged with what the law states in every case before deliberation. The evidence must be weighed within that context and not how my emotions, opinions or preconceived notions come into play.
------------------
A jury is a very powerful tool in the hands of informed citizens.. It's NOT just a mouthpiece for the prosecution. If a jury is fully informed, then they'd realize that they absolutely CAN weigh the evidence and even the law against their opinions and preconceived notions.. It's called jury nullification..
In essence, it means that even if the prosecution proved the defendant possessed marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt, you can STILL find him not guilty because you disagree with the law.
It'd be nice if more people were informed.
excon
Thank you for your thoughtful reply PP. I appreciate the time you invested in it. Happy Sunday to thee! :)
So you think jury nullification is okay excon? They make a finding specifically to sabotage/undermine a law with which they do not agree? That seems very hostile to me. What happened in the OJ case? Was that jury nullification. Everyone knew he was guilty so upon what basis did the jury find him innocent. Is "innocent" the same "not guilty"?
Hello again, Rosie:
Lemme ask you this.. Let's say you're on a jury.. The prosecution puts on its lead witness - the head cop who did the investigation.. The cop tells he matched fingerprints to the defendant.. He says that he saw the defendant do the deed, and so on..
Then the defense puts on its witnesses.. Those witnesses PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that the lead cop witness is a LIAR, LIAR, LIAR. They have him RECORDED being a liar.. He's the biggest liar in history...
So, even though you BELIEVE the defendant is guilty, is that going to be your verdict?? SHOULD you have the power to exercise your judgment?? You DO know that's what happened in the OJ case, don't you?
excon
Why would I believe the defendant is guilty if the "evidence" is proven to be false excon? So you believe OJ was innocent? I heard that the jury wanted to get back at all the cops who ever did them wrong so they came up with the verdict they did in retaliation. I don't know if that is true. Are you saying that all of the evidence used against OJ Simpson was false? That it was a setup? Why did he get in that white van and drive for hours on the freeway with a gun? What was that all about? Did he do that for dramatic effect because he was distraught about his wife's murder and thought a good old fashioned car chase would help him get through it? What/whom was he running from exactly? All the people I know were SHOCKED/STUNNED by the verdict. Now I don't know everyone in the world. Maybe tons of them BELIEVED in the innocence of the famous football star and thought he was getting a raw deal and cheered when he was found innocent. I cannot speak about that which I don't know. If you think the OJ jury exercised its judgment and actually believed in OJ's innocence then I can understand your argument. I do not believe that for a moment. Different strokes. Thank you for your reply. I am a bit puzzed that you think I would think someone is guilty when the evidence proves otherwise. 
Thank you for your reply excon.
Hello Rosie:
It's NOT that complicated.. You're ON a jury.. A cop tells you the guy DID it. Another witness PROVES the cop is a liar. Irrespective of ANY other evidence, are you gonna find the defendant guilty?
excon
I already answered that question. If there is no credible provable evidence how could I possibly say the defendant is guilty? You are clearly trying to make a point here and I am clearly not getting it. Did I answer your question excon? Here's one from me to you. Do you think OJ
Simpson was guilty or innocent? Why? Thank you for your reply.
