ozemouze
Proud Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 852
- Points
- 28
Anna;4279106 said:Err, no. I was just saying that because a lot of corruption exists in the US justice system — shown in cases like OJ, or R. Kelly who got off despite a literal sex tape with a minor — people will often take a not guilty verdict as just another injustice if it's not innocence proven definitively by DNA evidence or an alibi from CCTV showing participation in a crime as impossible, etc. I'm not saying that view is right or acceptable or whatever, I'm saying it's understandable and inevitable because to doubt is human nature and sometimes that doubt is justified. People are entitled to presumption of innocence, but reality is usually a lot more complicated than that very simple notion. So, again, as long as they don't negatively act on it, people should be free to believe what they want. All of us on both sides are just utilising belief, since none of us were actually there for any of it..
Exactly, it's more complicated, and that's why cases should be treated individually, not compared to others (especially if they have nothing in common). The fact that someone somewhere escaped the justice system cannot invalidate every other verdict in general, that's just absurd (and a simplification). And sure, people can have their opinions. It would be more beneficial tough to learn the facts as well before having those opinions - or simply refrain from forming them them if we are not familiar with the details.