|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 5, 2017 10:27:03 GMT
Could be. I don't know. But his case - like those of Robert Blake and Michael Jackson - reveal a chilling fact about the justice system. Even though these three men were all found Not Guilty after lengthy trials and jail time (at least for Simpson and Blake), the assumption made by most people is that they are most certainly guilty. On the other hand, if a defendant is found guilty, the subject is considered to be closed. It is disturbing how fragile is the assumption of innocence in our society. If a person is arrested, held in jail, indicted, and put on trial then that is almost always what is considered evidence of guilt even on those rare occasions that a person is found Not Guilty. Just the legal process convicts people.Don't know whether or not Simpson, Blake, or Jackson are guilty but they were all cleared by a trial by jury. If you believe in the law and justice, then shouldn't this end any discussion of guilt or innocence?The herd will believe what they want to believe, and this is pretty much founded on their own brand of what they perceive as justice and will condemn and discriminate like the rabble in the pit that they are. Justice is about fairness and equality, and the law is full of devious and conniving double standards of corruption and hypocrisy. It feeds of the suffering of others. There is no 'real' justice served if this is the case. In regards to OJ, guilty or not, the judicial process will convict and consume even before the trial has come to it's conclusion. People get off on seeing others suffer, even when it really has nothing to do with them and they don't know all the facts. It is working in best interests of the system and to keep the status quo intact only. It hides it's true intentions behind a deceitful veil of care and concern for the people. Justice is only served for those happy with the outcome. It can go either way. |
|
