Quote from: bryant.coleman on June 08, 2015, 03:26:36 AM

Quote from: jaysabi on June 07, 2015, 10:57:36 PM

I guess 'everyone knew he was guilty' except the jury. So again, you're comparing a guy who was acquitted of his charges to a guy who was convicted. The analogy is as worthless now as the first time you said it because you're trying to draw a conclusion about how one guy got punished by society for his crimes vs. a guy who society decided committed no crime. I'm also certain OJ committed murder, but it doesn't make the analogy any more relevant, because you're not comparing two like things.

The "society" still believes that he committed those crimes. Only the corrupt judge thought otherwise. And why shouldn't I make the comparison? The fact that OJ bribed his way out of punishment is no excuse to declare him as innocent. I just compared two people who perpetrated criminal acts. Whether they were punished for their crimes or not is insignificant here.

Here is the way the reasoning about this goes.

In America, it is better to allow 10 guilty people go free, than it is to punish one innocent man as though he were guilty. Because of this, the laws and courts are set up at their base to keep the innocent people free from punishment.

You and I may know in our hearts that OJ was guilty. However, do we know for an absolute fact that he really was guilty? I mean, is there not some slight chance that he was framed somehow? He was not held guilty because the jury thought there might be some slight chance he was innocent, even though they felt in their hearts that he was guilty.

If Ross and his attorneys had gone the route that OJ did, he may have been found innocent. If they went the route that Karl Lentz suggests, he would have been found innocent even if he admitted to guilt. Why? Because in Ross's case, there was no harmed party, no corpus delicti, nobody who was accusing Ross of harming him bodily with verifiable harm, nobody who was accusing Ross of damaging or stealing their property with verifiable property damage.

In America, if you require it, you must be judged on harm or damage (injury). By not requiring it, Ross essentially said, "I am guilty and I want to be held and punished according to statute code laws."