Well done with Woody Allen & Roman Polanski. Now go burn your Michael Jackson albums

[Skybird]

And still I object to an impolicaiton of that beign wekathy makes you already guilty in a criminal sense. I stick to it. Guilt muts be proven by evidence at a court, else we all get into hell'S kitchen. Whjat yioud escribe doe snot neutralise what I say, vienne, it only says that another law principle is heavily violated all the tiem as well: that is that before the law all and everybody, no mmatter their skin colour and gen der, age and social class, wealth and power, have to be equal, and that the law must treat them all equal.

This cannot be repaired by just committing another violation of law: claiming a claim as valid evidence for the supect's guilt already, that justifies that no evidence must be shown for the charges.

We have red about enough cases where somebody saw his career ruined already by somebody else raising chrages that later showed to be untrue. Legally, the accused was fully rehabilitated, and still his career was damnaged and social repuation was in ruins. But if evidence no longer plays any role, than even the legal rehabilitation is no longer possible, and ev erbyody can accuse just everbyody else, and he who yells the liudzest and has the kost wolved howling with him, wins. Volume then is the new standard by which to judge "jutsice".

And if you think of it, this is what already happens in the media's propaganda on daily politics and world issues, opinion streamlining and politically correct mind education.

Believing is not knowing. Claim is nto evidence. Mobbing is not justice. Accusation is not guilt.

[vienna]

Cool your jets, Skybird. As often happens with you, you are arguing against something that wasn't said, just what you want argue...


At no point in my post did I say wealth automatically makes one guilty, in a court of law, nor did I even infer such. In the US, a verdict of "not guilty' is not necessarily a finding of actual innocence, merely that the prosecution has not sufficiently presented its case so as to warrant a finding of "guilty". There are a lot of cases, many more than should probably be, where a defendant is blatantly guilty, but is found not guilty by a technicality of law, malfeasance of the court and/or court officers, or some other factor not related to the defendant's actual guilt...

The next time you want to argue your point(s) effectively, it is probably best to not try to do what you have, in the past, objected to so strenuously and accused others of doing to you: putting words in other people's mouths. My post stands as it was written and intended and your response has nothing to do with that content and intent; it appears you had no place to argue your point, so you made up 'fake content' as an excuse for your argument. Cowboy up and make your own arguments without the cheap crutch of trying to force perceptions of others' post that don't actually exist...


Ta...






<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Why does justice take so long for the rich and famous?
From accused, to prove it, to the news media, to the court, to the sentencing, to the time behind bars.

The other cases of unknown people (men and women) might make it to the news for a shocking truth to
be revealed that day, but how long till the justice system has them behind bars to serve their time?

Is it fair? Does anyone believe everything they hear in the news? Do we judge them guilty till proven innocent in our own hearts and minds?

I think we do ... I know I have