Fukkin Explain something to me, cause I'm a moron...

nlphoto · 11-18-2005

This example is involving Robert Blake, but the question is more of a general one...

You're arrested... tried and aquitted of a crime... which means the legal system
says you did not commit that crime, because the state did not prove their case
beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now the founding fathers of this country did not come up with the terms
"beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" on a
fuckin lark... you're supposed to be SURE the defendant is guilty, not just
"kinda think" they are.

But no, now all you need to do is have enough money to hire a lawyer who
is better at telling their side of the story, (or more usually, better at
using the system to prevent the other side from being presented).

How does this not qualify as double jeopardy? Do criminal court decisions mean
nothing now in our justice system?

11-18-2005	#1
nlphoto Members Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Northern Outpost of Hell Posts: 428	Fukkin Explain something to me, cause I'm a moron... This example is involving Robert Blake, but the question is more of a general one... You're arrested... tried and aquitted of a crime... which means the legal system says you did not commit that crime, because the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now the founding fathers of this country did not come up with the terms "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "preponderance of the evidence" on a fuckin lark... you're supposed to be SURE the defendant is guilty, not just "kinda think" they are. But no, now all you need to do is have enough money to hire a lawyer who is better at telling their side of the story, (or more usually, better at using the system to prevent the other side from being presented). How does this not qualify as double jeopardy? Do criminal court decisions mean nothing now in our justice system?