Life not Death Dec 2, 2009 9:58:35 GMT -5
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 2, 2009 9:58:35 GMT -5
Hi Vince! (may I call you Vince?
The example you pointed out about Joyce Gilchrist is only an example of ONE person who was skewing evidence to fit HER desires. Yes, there are individuals in the criminal justice system who are corrupt, but this does not constitute a conspiracy. A conspiracy involves more than one person, and it must be a willing participation.
Now, if Gilchirst falsified results on a test and testified under oath that these findings were true and the police, jury, judge, or prosecutor did not know about her deception, it is not a conspiracy. That is only one person misleading everyone else. For a conspiracy to have occurred in this situation, all parties involved would have to know about her deception and still use her testimony as factual evidence. From the article you cited, it does not sound like this is the case. No one knew (or maybe a few people did know) what this woman was doing when she was doing it.
My point is that a conspiracy (which involves more than one person) would have to mean that the majority of police, judges, prosecutors, and jury members would all have to be in cahoots with each other. I can't see that as being a possibility, especially when juries are involved. I can see what you are saying about jury members being "bought," but jury selection comes from a completely random pool of people. Of course, each side must decide which people would be best for a case, and many jury members are chosen because they might benefit one side. However, "bought" juries are mainly Hollywood fantasy.
I am not sure why you would want to compare a criminal case against a sporting event? This is like comparing apples and oranges. Referees base their calls on what they see happening at a present moment, so calls can often be tougher to make without a slow motion play-back. In a criminal case, there is usually no such thing. Witnesses, maybe, but unless someone is involved in a convenience store robbery where the cashier or a customer were killed, there is nothing like what you are comparing it to.
Yes, cases do come down to a jury's opinion, but even with going into a trial with a preconceived notion about the defendant, opinions can be changed with evidence. And when I say evidence, I mean all kinds of evidence. Many, many trials do not include physical evidence. This isn't CSI where the "smoking gun" can always be found. All the prosecutor must do is prove that an individual is very likely to have been the person involved in a crime. This CAN be done with circumstantial evidence.
The vast majority of individuals in prison and on death row are guilty of what they were charged with. Even if someone could afford a "better than appointed" attorney, it does not guarantee a verdict of not guilty. I think, in my opinion, that it is not necessarily the question of guilt when it comes to people in prison or on death row, but I believe it is about the kind of punishment that is given. Does a woman who kills her husband in the heat of passion deserve to be on death row? In my opinion, most likely not. However, a woman who kills her own children for any reason (other than insanity) does belong there. A man who kills his wife and almost born son because he wants out of a marriage does, too. I still think the others (i.e.: heat of passion killers) need to be punished for what he or she did, but I am not real keen on putting those kinds of individuals to death.
I look forward to hearing from you.
had vinny been here in the fifties, he would have been seeing russians behind every tree. his forte is manufacturing insane conspiracies of whole cloth.
read his lunatical ramblings in the charles hood thread. not a shred of truth, but totally demonstrative of how his lack of a mind works