- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
OJ was innocent, sorry to burst your bubble OP.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Defense doesn't "prove actual innocence." The defense defends the accused of the prosecution TRYING to prove their guilt.Originally Posted by ServeChilled81
bruh, we're going in circles here, just wondering about their thoughts on a personal level,Originally Posted by TennHouse2
thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial.Originally Posted by ServeChilled81
just edited my previous reply. But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence
if that was all it came down to?
after investigating, evidence etc... someone who signs point to guilty, are they now just trying to convince the jury of something that may not be true, rather than prove actual innocence
My comment from the beginning was never meant to be deriding.
Defense doesn't "prove actual innocence." The defense defends the accused of the prosecution TRYING to prove their guilt.Originally Posted by ServeChilled81
bruh, we're going in circles here, just wondering about their thoughts on a personal level,Originally Posted by TennHouse2
thats now it all comes down to because we dont know whether the person is lying or not, which is why we use evidence and etc...not what we believe......and again the lawyer doesn't know for a fact whether the person there defending did or not, for all he knows he just helped an innocent person get off..and in the end whether he thinks she did it or not he should be happy to know he did his job to make sure that everyone gets a fair trial.Originally Posted by ServeChilled81
just edited my previous reply. But i'm not bashing criminal defense lawyers or saying someone shouldn't be represented, just how do the lawyers feel after it's done?
Sure we all can say only those involved know what happened, but what would be the point any investigation or evidence or trial, to prove guilt or innocence
if that was all it came down to?
after investigating, evidence etc... someone who signs point to guilty, are they now just trying to convince the jury of something that may not be true, rather than prove actual innocence
My comment from the beginning was never meant to be deriding.
What would you have then? No defense for those deemed guilty by the majority? What kind of justice system is that?Originally Posted by scshift
I'm not criticizing lawyers. I'm saying that the general public tends to view them as immoral because a small percentage fights cases when they know full well their client was guilty. Yes, they are doing their job. But for these people, they are often in full knowledge that their client violated the law and still chooses to defend them. It's kind of like an assassin - they do their job, but are they doing the right thing?
I'm aware that many lawyers defend innocent people. In every case there are guilty people and there are innocent people. For those lawyers who choose to defend a guilty person, they most likely are doing it for money, cause damn straight they know their client broke the law.
What would you have then? No defense for those deemed guilty by the majority? What kind of justice system is that?Originally Posted by scshift
I'm not criticizing lawyers. I'm saying that the general public tends to view them as immoral because a small percentage fights cases when they know full well their client was guilty. Yes, they are doing their job. But for these people, they are often in full knowledge that their client violated the law and still chooses to defend them. It's kind of like an assassin - they do their job, but are they doing the right thing?
I'm aware that many lawyers defend innocent people. In every case there are guilty people and there are innocent people. For those lawyers who choose to defend a guilty person, they most likely are doing it for money, cause damn straight they know their client broke the law.
Originally Posted by HankMoody
Originally Posted by hongcouver604
one of the least respected professions out there.Originally Posted by scshift
Originally Posted by bxbadboy90
I always wanted to know if the defendants tell their lawyers the real side of the story before the attorney represents them in the trial.
Originally Posted by HankMoody
Originally Posted by hongcouver604
one of the least respected professions out there.Originally Posted by scshift
Originally Posted by bxbadboy90
I always wanted to know if the defendants tell their lawyers the real side of the story before the attorney represents them in the trial.
pacmagic2002 wrote:
I would say ask Johnnie Cochran, but he is no longer with us.
O.J. got off, CELEBRATION *!+!#%+!!!!!!!!!!!
White girl gets off, its a problem.
She didnt have the body sitting outside of her house...........and the only reason the body was where it was, is because somebody moved it there.
SMH, not everyone was celebrating when OJ "got off", but he didn't do it, so I fail to see the analogy. The evidence is far more definite in this case. In civil court OJ lost, just like she will. He had a lot more to lose though.
I mean there was one thing consistent with her behavior: LYING.
pacmagic2002 wrote:
I would say ask Johnnie Cochran, but he is no longer with us.
O.J. got off, CELEBRATION *!+!#%+!!!!!!!!!!!
White girl gets off, its a problem.
She didnt have the body sitting outside of her house...........and the only reason the body was where it was, is because somebody moved it there.
SMH, not everyone was celebrating when OJ "got off", but he didn't do it, so I fail to see the analogy. The evidence is far more definite in this case. In civil court OJ lost, just like she will. He had a lot more to lose though.
I mean there was one thing consistent with her behavior: LYING.
Pray tell... if humans are not reliable, what is your suggestion?Originally Posted by scshift
Only thing I dislike is how the jury makes the final verdict in many court cases. Humans are not impartial by nature, their compassion and sympathy often causes them to favor the victim even if all the circumstances are against the victim. Not to mention race and gender also plays a huge role in many cases.