ORIGINAL: Doug Cronkhite
ORIGINAL: David Bathe
errr... didn't he already admit to being guilty when he was originally charged?<div>Don't get me wrong... I'm a great believer that one's innocent until found guilty... unless of course, one's already admitted ones guilt!</div><div>
</div><div>Imagine this scenario:</div><div>You're caught in a sting operation trying to solicit sex with an underage girl.</div><div>You admit to the charges.</div><div>Months later, case dropped because of some police/legal technicality.</div><div>You're free! Life's back to normal.</div><div>Hello? </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
<div>
</div></div>
This is the crux of the issue most of us have with the process. We've only heard what the prosecution has released to the press, and they did so to the press prior to any conviction. I'm not saying there aren't some real lowlifes in that group, but it doesn't change the fact they they're now guilty in the court of public opinion, with no due process.
As for what he said when charged, there are rumors that the audio tapes vary GREATLY from what the released information portrays. Until the case goes to trial, and the events are made public record, we only have ONE side of the issue. Do I think Jason has a problem? Yes. Do I think he committed a crime? I don't know, because I'm not privy to all the information, I'm not on the jury, and the trial hasn't happened yet. Until that time, I will not convict, and sentence Jason in a kangaroo court like this.
In many cases, what you say holds true. In many, not. In some you just know that person is guilty. Take the shooter that killed all those people in Arizona and that shot a senator. He is, in our sistem of law not guilty. We had a drunk lady kill a kid close by here, and she was completely wasted (drunk) at the site of the accident. The kid died that night. She was for the law still not guilty (serving time now). Take the lone guy that hears a knock at his door, and the cops come in looking for kiddie porno in this person's computer. They find it. Still he is not guilty. Say a person goes to meet a minor to have sex with her. He thinks it is a 14 year old, and he corresponded with her. At the time of the arrest, the cops have all the proof they need in their hands. Yet, he is not guilty for the law.
In my book, all these are guilty like hell, sorry. No benefit of the doubt in any of these cases.
Other cases (most other cases) are not so clear. Cops are called in because of a domestic dispute. She is beaten up, he has been cut with a knife. At the scene, of course you cannot tell what happened. In this particular case we will never know. Take the kid that shot R.Regan. any doubt of his guilt at the scene. I do not think so... Yet, for the law, it was "alleged". Until a jury of their peers find them guilty.
As far as having One side of the issue, it is not true. In real life the Defense starts damage control as soon as they are hired or assigned. It is their job, that is how our system of justice works, and everybody involved knows how it works.
Gerry