I'm not a fan of Scott Peterson and yes, I'm one of those people that don't care if O.J. did or didn't do it but... whatever happened to be exonerated? doesn't winning your court case mean anything anymore? Let's not get into the sticky situation of whether you agree or disagree with a verdict, if you are found not guilty the topic should be dropped. I understand this is the American Idol generation, everyone wants to have a vote, everyone wants their say, but the law doesn't work like that, the rules, as I always say, are the rules. Twelve people get a say in whether or not a person is guilty or not, thousands of dollars are spent on lawyers for the defense and for the prosecution, a judge, who is supposedly unbiased makes the ruling based on the heretofore mentioned twelve people and after all is said and done, a verdict is reached and that's that. Well that's how it used to be, now there's the idiotic invention of civil (Revenge) court. Here's a court that, were the law actually not being abused would be used for one purpose and one purpose only. A Civil Court, last I heard anyway, is supposed to be for small claims, private settlements that don't necessarily need all the pomp and circumstance of a bigger court. lately, though, it seems that civil courts have been getting used to re-try, which I didn't think was supposed to happen, a case where the verdict didn't come out the way the prosecution wanted. So say in the case of O.J., the guy gets off, so then they sue him in civil and win, what the hell?!? Personally I think double jeopardy should apply across the board and you should only be able to pick one place to have your case tried. The courts aren't a slot machine, you don't just keep pulling the handle until you get the justice you want.
No comments:
Post a Comment