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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73621)	8/29/2003 1:45:07 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

LOL... "and I have decided that the judge or jury didn't make the right decision, but I have, and the person is guilty because I say so even though the process of law says they are completely innocent" You lecture me on the practicalities of the justice system and then tell me that the justice system finds the person "completely innocent." A person might be found "not guilty." That merely means that there was not a preponderance of evidence to "prove" guilt. Completely innocent is an entirely different matter. Anyway, I was questioning the ethics of helping someone get acquited when you know they have done the crime. I understand the legaleze mumbo jumbo and how the system works. What do you think would happen if a group of lawyers decided to investigate their own cases and only take cases in which, they were absolutely convinced their client was being totally truthful with them and innocent? They'd starve for a couple of years and then when they started to get a reputation, they would win almost every case. Not for being the trickyest shiesters in town, but simply because the judges and juries knew they were playing with a stacked deck of aces. What a concept...defend cases you actually believe in, and fight for true justice, instead of just some piddling bread and butter hassles...lol