-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
O.J. Simpson, former football star acquitted of murder, dies at 76
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
So do you think this lawyer is a buffoon, as her client told her?
Because I am exactly like her.
libre
Skylark
Everyone has a right to a legal defence. This is a basic premise of modern criminal law.
And found liable for wrongful death by another jury.
And apparently, we believe in opposite ways.
So does getting stabbed to death.
New article:
www.thebeaverton.com
OJ Simpson dies surrounded by family members he didn't murder
LOS ANGELES - Former American football star turned actor turned guy who was found liable for killings but not convicted criminally OJ Simpson has succumbed to a battle with cancer, surrounded by the remaining family members who did not die at his hand.
We Never Know
No Slack
"And found liable for wrongful death by another jury"
Civil cases are easier to win.
"And apparently, we believe in opposite ways"
I never said whether I think he did it or not... So apparently you've made your decision about me without evidence lol
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Shows just how messed up the legal system is.
We Never Know
No Slack
Nice satire source. You sure researched that one lmaoNew article:
OJ Simpson dies surrounded by family members he didn't murder
LOS ANGELES - Former American football star turned actor turned guy who was found liable for killings but not convicted criminally OJ Simpson has succumbed to a battle with cancer, surrounded by the remaining family members who did not die at his hand.
The Beaverton - Bias and Credibility
SATIRE These sources exclusively use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the
mediabiasfactcheck.com
Yes, the Beaverton is satire. You didn't realize it was satire from the headline? Oh dear.
I see this aspect as optimal justice.
We Never Know
No Slack
You even quoted from the link. You were busted again. Just admit it lol
Why? How? Criminal and civil cases have different standards of liability. How is that “messed up?”
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
On is guilty and one is innocent. That's pretty screwed up.
One is preponderance of evidence standard. The other is beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing screwed up about it at all.
Thinking civil liability and criminal guilt should have the same standard is what’s screwed up.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. It's just screwed up along with people in complete denial the justice system is screwed up.
So do you believe civil liability should also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Or do you believe criminal guilt should be established by a preponderance of the evidence?
And explain please. Let’s get into the details rather than merely stating “the justice system is screwed up.”
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Either a person is guilty or not.
It should be that simple , and not utterly stupid as saying someone is guilty in one court and then saying not guilty in another court for the same crime.
You didn’t answer my question.
Here’s another: Do you believe in evidentiary standards?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If you want to prove beyond a doubt. You need evidence. Once guilt or innocence is declared that should be the end of it as you cannot try a person twice for the same crime according to the law.
Well, the criminal trial was won by the defense because they were able to convince the jury that the cops had framed O.J. by allegedly falsifying the DNA evidence. Jurors also considered that evidence relating to Simpson's history of domestic abuse was not relevant to the case. So, once the DNA evidence and the history of domestic violence were disregarded by the jury, there wasn't much left to convict him.
So, in one trial, some people decided the evidence was "false," while other people in another trial decided the exact same evidence was "true." If the DNA evidence was declared tainted and inadmissible in the civil trial, then the result would have been the same as in the criminal trial.