Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (83161)	6/28/2000 10:00:00 PM
From: CharleyMike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I can accept mistrust of government as an excellent reason for no more convict killing. I think, however, the expense argument doesn't stand up. It's difficult for me to consider money in a discussion concerning life or death. And, as for OJ, we/you/I/most of us think he was/is guilty. Why can we accept this miscarriage of justice but not the other? We seem to accept the jury's error. We seem to accept the machinations of the defense attorneys. Why, then, can we not accept similar jury errors and zealous prosecutors when the shoe is on the other foot? Is it because of the finality involved? I think, if we're gonna' err in one case, then we must accept that we may err in the other.