Warning: this post is Off Topic
Ok, for the last 15 or so years I have had to listen to endless commentary from people who “know” that OJ did it. Society at large has agreed that he did it, therefore people assume that I “know” he did just like they “know” he did.
Here’s the thing. I don’t know he did it, and neither do any of you. It amazes me how people can talk about media bias when it comes to politics or environment or paganism or any of their pet causes they feel is misrepresented in the press, yet feel that they know how a case should be decided better than the 12 people that actually sat through the whole court case and heard all the arguments, and had the people right there in front of them. It was clear that the LA county police were tampering with evidence, and that Ron Goldman was not exactly a Boy Scout and may have been messed up with some bad people himself but Yeah, sure, YOU know best.
Me, I don’t know whether he did it or did not. I know three things:
1. It is ok to not have an opinion about something, especially when you have no way of knowing all the facts.
2. Not Guilty does not mean Innocent. It means that there is reasonable doubt enough to not convict. A writ of Innocence is something from the court that says that you not only are not-guilty, but definitely did not do the crime. Not many of those get issued.
3. If you are going to contradict the people that have most of the facts, than you should have a really good reason and hopefully some new facts.
Me, I am going with the Jury on that one. Oh, and Michael Bay. He also did not think that OJ is beleivable as a cold blooded killer, which is why he ast Schwartzenegger as the Terminator instead of OJ.
Now it seems I will have to listen to people go on and on about the Casey Anthony verdict. The news, my inbox, and FB page is flooded with idignant people coimplaining about the verdict because no matter what the Jury decided, they “know” she is guilty. I have requests to boycott anything that Ms Anthony might make money from, accusing her of killing her daughter to become rich and famous (which was never a motive even considered, so I have no idea WTF that is about). I have gotten request that media stop covering the issue because it just increases the media storm (yeah, uh would you guys please stop covering the news? Ok thanks...). And yet other requests to sign petitions to enact various laws which will prevent this from happening again (because you know, people will surely obey a law to report missing children even though they don’t obey laws to tell the truth to the police.)
What happened is horrific, and we may never know the truth of every detail, and how or if she was involved. Would it be less horrific if Ms Anthony was in prison for less than solid reasons?
I have gotten five requests today to sign onto a petition for a Law to be named after Caylee. It’s actually a good idea for a law requiring parents to notify police within a certain time frame if their children are missing. No problem with the law itself. Unfortunately naming the law for Caylee or another victim is a terrible idea. Such laws lend themselves to being twisted and misused by those that would exploit the overly emotional and fearful populace, just like Megans Law and a few others. I don’t even know how it could be twisted, but I have faith in peoples ability to do stupid shit in the name of feeling safe and being vengeful, so I am sure that they will find a way.
Anyway, please get some perspective. You can think she is guilty as sin. Tell you the truth, I think she is guilty as sin. But I don’t “know” that she is, and neither do you.
Who is Casey Anthony?
Thank you for pointing out that it is OK to not have an opinion on something. There are many things that I do not have opinions on because I do not have enough understanding and facts to form an opinion. It is far worse to have an uninformed, baseless opinion than it is to simply say, “No comment.”
Thank god; this is the first sense I’ve heard on the subject since the media shitstorm started. I’m glad it’s over, though, if only so I can quit hearing about it.
James Cameron was the director who turned OJ down.
My answer to people at work asking what I thought (“did she do it?”) was similar to yours: “how the **** should I know?”
In point of fact, I know she is innocent, because a legally constituted jury has so decided. If we claim to live by the rule of law, we have to abide by the consequences of that rule, and one of them is that juries determine guilt or innocence.
It’s times like this that I am truly grateful for the decision, now 7 years old, to dispose of the television. My first reaction was the same as Nutty Professor: “Huh? Who’s that?” Yes, I did hear that a lot of emails have been cluttering up your inboxs, but still, I assure you that you would have a much more peaceful environment if you got rid of the TV… it will, after all, rot your brain!
When I was contemplating such a radical action, I was a bit worried that I might lose touch with important current events, but on the other hand, I also thought that if something really, really important transpired… that someone would inform me of it a different way and so far, that’s been true, for Fukoshima, for Iraq, etc. It does occasionally happen that I am surprised to find that something has totally bypassed me, for instance, I missed Reagan’s funeral, for several years! Caused quite a bit of amusement in my social circle, but I really don’t think I have missed anything of much more import than that and it has brought a huge measure of peace to my environment.
No you do not know she is innocent. You know that a Jury found her not guilty, there is a HUGE difference. Juries do not determine guilt and innocence, they determine guilt if the evidence warrants it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
WSA, what makes you think I have a TV? I never mentioned it and don’t see how that comes into it.
I do in fact have one, but have never been all that much of a tube junkie so for me I dont need to go to the extreme. I do not get news from TV anyway.
The TV comment was not specifically directed at you, Inominandum, sorry if it sounded like it was. It was meant to be just a general comment about the atmosphere that surrounds such media circuses such as large contentious trials and how much more peaceful my environment is without that particular channel of input into my home environment. I got a recent teaching about just that thing when I went to a relative’s house for a week’s visit. They run the TV from 6am to midnight even when other things are going on in the household, like family dinner. It was amazing to be back in that environment after not ever having a TV running in our current house and what a relief to be free of it!
As to the more central theme you have been discussing, it’s obvious to me at least that a court decision of “not guilty” does most certainly not mean that the defendant is innocent. It simply means that in our legal system, a defendant is legally presumed to be innocent unless a preponderance of the legally admissible evidence indicates guilt and then either a judge or a jury finds the defendant guilty by a formal verdict. This is one reason that civil trials often follow criminal trials, especially where the criminal trial’s verdict was “not guilty” because the burden of proof is much lower in civil proceedings. Seems simple to me, but it has been my life-long experience that for some reason, the majority of people do not find it so. Yet one more reason why many of the atrocities of the past and present were perpetrated, I guess.
Many, perhaps even most, people operate on an emotional presumption of guilt upon accusation, even when a preponderance of evidence points toward innocence, and even more so when it’s only a reasonable doubt of guilt and yet more so still when the alleged crime is the socio-legal fad of the day, like witchcraft during Inquisition and Puritan days, well, centuries, and child anything in our times. Meanwhile, these same people are often hypocritically giving lip-service to Blackstone’s “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” out of the other side of their mouth! In my life, I have spent a long years and a lot of energy railing against such base ignorance and mob psychology to absolutely no affect whatsoever, consequently, I now choose more of an energetic Aikido approach against the intrusion of such energy into my space. Perhaps that’s not the best decision for the betterment of society as a whole, but it’s far better for my own health, which must be in place first in order for me to do any good for anyone else.
As I said on Facebook:
Yes, she may have been guilty…but for some reason, a jury of her peers decided that there was reasonable doubt…therefore she walks. If you don’t like it, just remember that there are pretty of places in the world that would cut off your head for just questioning the legal system.
Too often, we confuse believing with knowing. Regardless of the guilt or innocence of this woman; this is an incredibly sad situation. A young child is dead, a family is devastated and I doubt Ms. Anthony will have a happy life.
Situations like this frequently result in hastily passed laws because of the emotion surrounding the issue. If only we had a law requiring a “waiting period” on new laws…
Well said, good sir. Nothing wrong with having opinions, but people who claim they know she’s guilty or not are presuming a wisdom that no outsider has. She’s now facing death threats from people who are willing to bet her life on their opinion…
Damn Straight! Say it again brother.
Hi I stumbled upon your blog by mistake when i searched Msn for this topic, I need to say your page is very very helpful I also seriously like the layout, it is cool!