Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick

SAINT_MICHAEL · 04-13-2010, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by saintfan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by saintfan

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?

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.

04-13-2010, 08:43 PM	#11
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446	Re: Steelers trade Holmes to Jets for fifth-round draft pick Originally Posted by saintfan 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. 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. Originally Posted by saintfan 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. 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. Originally Posted by saintfan 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? 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.
SAINT_MICHAEL 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 446