Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though.
|
Talk's cheap. I'm waiting. You may perhaps have noticed that I've already changed my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayshum
Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?
|
I'll leave moral judgements to the clergy. My specific interest is the protection of the individual (including myself of course) from malicious prosecution by the State.
I can't believe that you and so many others absolutely fail to understand that if O.J. Simpson could be convicted on the basis of the evidence presented at his trial (which basically consisted of "Well he must have done it!"), then any of us is in jeopardy of being convicted for
any murder
anywhere! And that's something I find really chilling. I much rather prefer the presumption of innocence, case closed.
It doesn't take much grey matter to understand that underlying principle but somehow when it comes to O.J. Simpson all too many observers/commentators just stop thinking. Let me repeat, if any man can be convicted without strong evidence presented in an impartial court of law, then tomorrow that man may be you! There have already been far too many examples of wrongful convictions over the years. The presumption of innocence is a principle that must never be undermined, and loose talk does precisely that.
I for one am dedicated to my inalienable rights as an individual (regardless of jurisdiction). I see whoever would erode those rights as an implacable enemy.
P.S. Keep in mind that I wasn't the one who introduced O.J. Simpson into this discussion.