Re: Hackers branded as terrorists was: (no subject)

JT,

>This necessarily means that justice, in our country and a lot more so in
>other countries, is not consistent.

A friend of mine told me on the first day of a law class, the professor said:

  "You must remember we call them a court of law, not a court of justice.  Keep
that in mind and you should be able to do well in this course.  Disregard that
distinction and you will surely fail."

I think that sums it up pretty well.  That and this defintion of a jury:

  "Twelve people who vote on who has the best lawyer."  <g>

>The first O. J. Simpson trial
>proved two things 'beyond a shadow of a doubt':  Justice has a lot more to
>do with money than we'd like to think, and 12 people can unanimously agree
>on (in light of the civil case) a very profound mistake."

The burden of proof in a civil case is *much* lower than in a criminal murder
case.  The rules are different.  And the civil case had the advantage of being
second, and learning from prosecutor's mistakes in the criminal case.

I don't have statistics to back this up, but I believe it is not that unusual
for a civil case to be won even when a criminal case over the same incident is
lost.  It certainly wasn't the first time, nor will it be the last.

At any rate, I don't believe the civil case outcome proves the first jury made a
profound mistake, given their respective jury instructions and the evidence or
testimony of each case.

I'm not proclaiming OJ's innocence here, just disputing the civil case proves
the first jury was wrong.

It's a court of law, not a court of justice...

Doug