Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL (Post 218179)

What are you trying to say with this statement? It seems to contradict itself. The first two points indicate laws are getting less stringent by eliminating the DP and reducing sentences. Yet the third statement would mean they are getting tougher by "persuading" juries to prosecute innocent people. What is your point and what does it have to do with this?



First of all you have no idea the factuality of this statement. Go to your local jail and ask how many inmates in there are innocent. I bet it's a pretty high number. If 5 percent of them are telling the truth, then it can add up to a lot of people. I'm not saying any system is better than ours, but to say definitely that someone did or did not commit a crime even based on the outcome of a jury trial (or even worse a judge trial) is blind. Our own system realized this when they put in the appeal process. It allows for the chance to review a verdict because so very often it is wrong.

Second of all we aren't talking about a situation where a person was found Not Guilty. No trial was had due to a lack of evidence. So it is his word against hers. Not enough for a prosecuting DA to waste his/her resources on. This is very similar to the thousands of robberies, muggings, car thefts, and yes rapes that happen every day in this county and go unsolved or unreported. Unsolved crimes happen all the time in our perfectly set up judicial system. I guess you are fortunate enough to never have been a victim of a crime and experienced this first hand. But I would bet there are far more crimes committed in this country that go unpunished than cases where the legal system gets it right from arrest to prosecution to sentencing.



Blame falls back on the woman? What blame?



Of course he is, because the legal system always gets it right and the bad guys always get what's coming to them :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that he did assault the girl because I wasn't there. But I'm guessing you weren't either. So you saying he positively did not assault her because the DA decided that there wasn't enough to charge him on is a total guess on your part even if you don't want to admit it. Tell me this, if nothing happened as you claim, then why didn't the police file charges against her for filing a false police report?

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218186)

Well then allow me to ask you this: Of the total number of people that have been convicted of a crime and are in jail and otherwise alive, how many of them are innocent? You cannot make the "Very often it is wrong" claim any more than Canton can make the very often it is right claim.

In fact, Canton, based on the number of overturned convictions related to those that aren't, is in a much better place to make his assertion than you are yours.

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218186)

The TRUTH (and any number you find will back this up) is that the majority of people in jail are rightfully there. Our system works, which is not to say it doesn't make mistakes, and Ben's situation if proof of the former, not the latter.

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218186)

Ben is innocent because there is insufficient evidence to show otherwise. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY THE GRACE OF GOD! The prosecutor is aware of this. Why aren't you?

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL (Post 218179)

What are you trying to say with this statement? It seems to contradict itself. The first two points indicate laws are getting less stringent by eliminating the DP and reducing sentences. Yet the third statement would mean they are getting tougher by "persuading" juries to prosecute innocent people. What is your point and what does it have to do with this?

Originally Posted by CantonLegend (Post 218157)

lol.....i know you read my whole post b/c you are one of the people that complains about me not reading your whole posts

i said it means either the prosecutor was wrong OR they didnt provide enough evidence

i also said later in the post that a not guilty verdict means there is no reason to believe you are not innocent......obviously not proof but the evidence doesnt show enough to prove you are guilty



few examples doesnt eliminate the basis for the rulings.....a not guilty ruling means you are not guilty of the crime.....yes there are a few examples as is the case with ANYTHING that are different.....but its a good rule to follow that if you are not guilty you probably did not do the crime you are being charged with

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218186)

Ben is innocent because there is insufficient evidence to show otherwise. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY THE GRACE OF GOD! The prosecutor is aware of this. Why aren't you?

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper (Post 218228)

It doesn't work that way. Insufficient evidence to bring to trial does NOT equate to innocence by no one's grace. Ask John Gotti. Well, you can't, he's dead... but the point is, how many times was Gotti prosecuted and found not guilty? How many times do you think federal prosecutors wanted to bring Gotti to trial but they didn't have enough evidence to do so? Did that mean Gotti was "innocent"? Don't think so.

As for Big Ben, well, is he really free of all blame for this last incident? Well, I don't know. Surely this being his 3rd incident of the kind does give me some doubt as to his "innocence"...

... again, don't believe the hype.

Originally Posted by SAINT_MICHAEL (Post 218189)

Really? Well, I am no lawyer, but a quick google lookup found this:

Law.com Charts: State by State Comparison

and this:

68 Percent Error Rate Found in Death Case Study

Now I did not write these so there may be some falsehood to them, but I feel confident in saying that a court decision being overturned on appeal is hardly a rare occurrence. Again, this is why they have an appeal process in the first place; they new they would be needed because screw-ups would happen. If you add into this the number of people let free because of DNA evidence after the fact (There have been 252 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States since 1989), I feel “so often wrong" is a fair assessment. When we are talking about the seriousness of being on trial, a 1 % rate of error or overturn on appeal should be considered too high IMO. I’m guessing you would too if you were on trial yourself or seeking the conviction of the person that raped your mother/sister/daughter.




I'd agree that the majority of the people in jail are guilty of a crime. But my point was more about the people that commit crimes and do not go to jail either because 1) they were not caught or 2) they were caught by could not be proven guilty. Disagree if you want, but I'm not naive enough to believe that just because a person isn't brought to trial for a crime, it means they 100% for sure did not commit the crime. No person was found guilty or ever tried for the murder of JonBenét Patricia Ramsey. That sure doesn't mean no crime was committed. Ben’s situation proves nothing. All we can do is speculate.



Because I keep my eyes open I guess. And so does the prosecutor. Ben was not charged for the crime of sexual assault in the eyes of the law. That is not the same as innocent. If it was, then the police would not have made that snide comment about prosecuting morals. They would have said, “We are convinced that Mr. Roethlisberger was guilty of no wrongdoing and we are happy to completely clear him of all charges. We are contemplating legal action against the woman who has falsely accused him”. But no, that didn’t happen. Who knows how he will be tried by the EYES OF GOD?

I'll go back to my previous example because it fits, people are aware of it, and it is easy. OJ was found not guilty of the murders. Yet strangely enough the LAPD (and the prosecutor whom you mention above) did not say "Gee, that guy was found not guilty. We must have had the wrong guy after all. We'd better go out and catch the real killer." Why not, because they felt they had the right guy to begin with. Because he wasn't found guilty, should they have re-opened the investigation following other leads? Of course not. It would have been a waste of time and money. Our perfect system had another glitch.

So to sum up you are obviously going to believe what you want to. But I believe there are enough mistakes in our legal system, both against the innocent and for the guilty, that it is foolhardy to blindly believe someone's guilt because one lawyer was more persuasive in court than another or someone's innocence because a DA realizes it is a waste of taxpayers money to pursue a case he cannot win against the kind of high dollar legal team that Roth. would buy.

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 218308)

Oh it does work that way. If we're talking semantics ( and it appears as though we are ), neither I nor you KNOW if Ben is "Innocent" of rape or picking his nose, but in the eyes of the law, in this case, he is not guilty because they didn't have enough to charge him and so guess what? Innocent. Same as Capone, or Gotti, or anyone else...UNTIL such time as there is enough evidence to convict and that evidence is presented in such a way that a conviction is achieved. A person is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Period. That doesn't mean they didn't do the crime.

Is OJ a murderer? Guess that depends on which side of the semantics argument you wanna be on.