Minimalist

Practice Squad
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
Not really... You presume the judicial system is an entity that can be ruined by one case.

It's not a perfect system. But go find a better one.

I can't find a better one. I think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I don't presume that and I don't think it can be ruined by just one case. I think it was a good thing that the general public saw someone get punished for the crime they committed. The jury got an obvious case right. This was a bigger case which was turned into a sport for people to watch. Seeing justice served is better for society as a whole than seeing people like Casey Anthony get away with murder.
 

ScipioCowboy

Practice Squad
Messages
487
Reaction score
0
I sense you two don't like each other very much. As for Pep, I'm still pissed about him outing the Liar, Liar story.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
I can't find a better one. I think you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. I don't presume that and I don't think it can be ruined by just one case. I think it was a good thing that the general public saw someone get punished for the crime they committed. The jury got an obvious case right. This was a bigger case which was turned into a sport for people to watch. Seeing justice served is better for society as a whole than seeing people like Casey Anthony get away with murder.
It's not arguing for the sake of arguing. You came in here claiming that jurors as a whole don't think. Then you claimed jurors needed scientific or DNA evidence every time. Later you said the jury (later changed to the judicial system) needed to redeem itself. These are flat out ridiculous notions, based on one or two cases (OJ and Anthony)
 

MetalHead

In the Rotation
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
It's not arguing for the sake of arguing. You came in here claiming that jurors as a whole don't think. Then you claimed jurors needed scientific or DNA evidence every time. Later you said the jury (later changed to the judicial system) needed to redeem itself. These are flat out ridiculous notions, based on one or two cases (OJ and Anthony)


In his mind,a conviction was needed to "redeem" the judicial system regardless of circumstance.
If they got it wrong in one,they must convict on another.
Like a "make up" call.
Minimal is as minimal does.
 

Minimalist

Practice Squad
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
I sense you two don't like each other very much. As for Pep, I'm still pissed about him outing the Liar, Liar story.

He doesn't like me. I just have fun calling him trash since he clearly is though. I think any grown up who tells another person they are going to shoot them is trash and is pretty much a bottom feeder. I think of him like I think of a pimple on my ass. Sort of like a pain that won't go away but you pay little attention to it because it's just a pimple.
 

Minimalist

Practice Squad
Messages
193
Reaction score
0
It's not arguing for the sake of arguing. You came in here claiming that jurors as a whole don't think. Then you claimed jurors needed scientific or DNA evidence every time. Later you said the jury (later changed to the judicial system) needed to redeem itself. These are flat out ridiculous notions, based on one or two cases (OJ and Anthony)

Fair. Even I'll admit my argument isn't the strongest right now. I was generalizing. I don't have the time right now to pull up other examples outside of Casey Anthony and OJ, and I don't remember off the top of my head since these stories rarely interest me. There are plenty others out there though.
 
Top Bottom