"The OJ case shows how biased the system is IN FAVOR of the criminal"
You know better than that. It shows how juries may be either mistaken, or intentionally prejudiced. It was this racial prejudice which accounts for so many of the convictions and aquittals through American history. As you are well aware, though, the aquittals are over represented by white upper-class males while the convictions are heavily over-represented by all white juries with a black (and poor) defendant. The OJ case was a rare reversal in the historical pattern, and we all know it was a racial pay-back for centuries of frames, set-ups, and cover-ups.
"A criminal kills many, or brutalizes many, but he is wrongfully convicted of a murder that he didn't commit, and he peacefully goes to sleep on the execution bed."
Of course, many crimes are never prosecuted: killers, thieves, and sub-humans of all kinds wander our streets free. Sometimes--to serve expedience--others sit in jail (perhaps on death row) in their place. And I agree with you: it is undoubtedly true that people have been executed for the crime of another while by happenstance they were guilty of a crime of their own.
But I have seen enough crooks in my life to know without any doubt that innocent people are framed whose only crime is that they are poor, unconnected, and convenient. You can spend a few weeks reading abnout a small fraction of those frames and other criminal activities here:
"A courtroom is not a place where truth and innocence inevitably triumph; it is only an arena where contending lawyers fight not for justice but to win."
Clarence Darrow
truthinjustice.org |
