|
|
Post by dianachristensen on Feb 25, 2020 4:29:55 GMT
Excuse my frankness, but you clearly neither saw nor read any of the coverage. It's really an insulting assertion you've made throughout this thread, especially considering the jury's actions once deliberations began. If what they did doesn't prove to you how fair they were, then you're the one with an irrational and unfair bias in favor of a fairly convicted predator. you are coreect i didnt follow much of the coverage of the deliberations, mine was more of a philosophical question, was it even possible. you believe it was - and maybe it was. maybe the coverage would have proven it to me. one day i might look into it more. but overall with cases like these, I wonder, is there perhaps a Better system in our legal future? Should there be? How can we really believe that all the information hurled our way in cases with So Much spotlight dont have an effect on the trial? for example, in China they are heavily experimenting with Ejustice. Verdicts essentially given by robots, no human factor. u can appeal the robot and then u get a human. I am not saying what they do is the best, merely pointing out there is a variety to it and that maybe thw legal system will need a reexamination sooner than later. btw injustice and bias can work both ways, for creep or against creep Here's an actual into which your philosophical can be subsumed: Harvey Weinstein received a fair trial.
|
|