Vodka and Orange
Bu2
Posts: 1,693
My boyfriend and I just had an argument. No, it wasn't over screwdrivers, but screwing each other may be out of the picture for tonight, heh heh *bouncing eyebrows*.
We were talking about OJ Simpson. Simply because we were talking about the system, and men who we think beat it, such as Robert "Baretta" Blake, William "Shall We Go For a Swim" Shatner, Robert "Wood Apparently Doesn't Float" Wagner, and, uh, OJ.
And I kept arguing that I was one of the few humans on the planet who agreed with the acquittal because I felt that, technically, "beyond a reasonable doubt" hadn't worked because the evidence had obviously been tampered with and messed up to a certain degree. I was looking at the letter of the law and not the fact that OJ had most certainly done it.
My boyfriend and I, so far, agree.
And then we talk about the second case, the civil case, and we start to disagree. I tell him that I think it opens a loophole that could cause an innocent man to be taken to trial twice and found guilty in that second court. Notice, I say second court. It's a civil court this time, not a criminal. And while many people took pleasure in seeing OJ lose in civil court, and have to give up all his money and his Heisman trophy, I can't help but envision the innocent man who might be forced to give up all of his income for the rest of his life simply because OJ's case set a precedent.
As I told my boyfriend, I don't want to see precedents set, and used as loopholes against the innocent sometime down the line. Sure, it proves justice is served to the obviously guilty, but it can also do lifetime damage to the innocent who are acquitted in criminal court due to faulty circumstantial evidence.
And that's when my boyfriend turned Socialist on me, and said that the laws we follow today were written by men who lived over 200 years ago and times have changed since then, and so should our laws. He argued that every case should be tried on its own merits and not on the basis of preceding law. Times change, laws should. People change, the Constitution should change.
And I kinda went bonkers at this because, I may be liberal, but I ain't THAT liberal. I started envisioning a government without our Constitution and everything that goes with it, and I got all defensive and prickly.
And then I sat back and looked at why, and I started trying to defend reasons why I defend our democracy versus a socialist government. And I remembered Mr. Sullivan, my 7th grade Social Studies teacher, who taught my class about China, the "sleeping giant" and socialism.
He split the class up into small groups and said that we were each to live on an island for the rest of the term, where four groups of islanders shared four grocery stands between them. There was no money, we had to barter with beads. Beads were chosen as our currency because they were popular ornaments for the women on this island.
The first day, one group sold bread for 23 beads. My group sold it for 21. Another group sold it for 25. The fourth group sold it for 19.
The fourth group ran out of bread and couldn't keep up with supply and demand. The rest of us ran low on beads.
The next day, we opened a bead bank.
The rest went downhill from there.
We were talking about OJ Simpson. Simply because we were talking about the system, and men who we think beat it, such as Robert "Baretta" Blake, William "Shall We Go For a Swim" Shatner, Robert "Wood Apparently Doesn't Float" Wagner, and, uh, OJ.
And I kept arguing that I was one of the few humans on the planet who agreed with the acquittal because I felt that, technically, "beyond a reasonable doubt" hadn't worked because the evidence had obviously been tampered with and messed up to a certain degree. I was looking at the letter of the law and not the fact that OJ had most certainly done it.
My boyfriend and I, so far, agree.
And then we talk about the second case, the civil case, and we start to disagree. I tell him that I think it opens a loophole that could cause an innocent man to be taken to trial twice and found guilty in that second court. Notice, I say second court. It's a civil court this time, not a criminal. And while many people took pleasure in seeing OJ lose in civil court, and have to give up all his money and his Heisman trophy, I can't help but envision the innocent man who might be forced to give up all of his income for the rest of his life simply because OJ's case set a precedent.
As I told my boyfriend, I don't want to see precedents set, and used as loopholes against the innocent sometime down the line. Sure, it proves justice is served to the obviously guilty, but it can also do lifetime damage to the innocent who are acquitted in criminal court due to faulty circumstantial evidence.
And that's when my boyfriend turned Socialist on me, and said that the laws we follow today were written by men who lived over 200 years ago and times have changed since then, and so should our laws. He argued that every case should be tried on its own merits and not on the basis of preceding law. Times change, laws should. People change, the Constitution should change.
And I kinda went bonkers at this because, I may be liberal, but I ain't THAT liberal. I started envisioning a government without our Constitution and everything that goes with it, and I got all defensive and prickly.
And then I sat back and looked at why, and I started trying to defend reasons why I defend our democracy versus a socialist government. And I remembered Mr. Sullivan, my 7th grade Social Studies teacher, who taught my class about China, the "sleeping giant" and socialism.
He split the class up into small groups and said that we were each to live on an island for the rest of the term, where four groups of islanders shared four grocery stands between them. There was no money, we had to barter with beads. Beads were chosen as our currency because they were popular ornaments for the women on this island.
The first day, one group sold bread for 23 beads. My group sold it for 21. Another group sold it for 25. The fourth group sold it for 19.
The fourth group ran out of bread and couldn't keep up with supply and demand. The rest of us ran low on beads.
The next day, we opened a bead bank.
The rest went downhill from there.
Feels Good Inc.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Jeebus.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
a knife?
(That was a joke)....
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Beep beep, heeeeyyyy.....
TOOT TOOT!
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
would you hold it against me?
BTW not sure I know where I stand in terms of your argument bu girl.
Seems you've both got a point!
Don't you just love my rampant fence sitting?! :rolleyes:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
a shitload of alcohol in me (well, not THAT much, heh heh), and I'm just over-reacting to everything and yet having fun by under-reacting to everything by making it a joke about sex and blow jobs.
You know, kinda like Clinton.
Um, Bill, that is.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
YES.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Yoko
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I love the idea of everybody. I love the fact that we're all here. I love debates and fun conversations and I love hypothetical this and "imagine that".
I also love freedoms that are ours by right and by law. I love the fact that I have the freedom to write on this message board. I love the freedom that allows me to march in protest and that gives me the right to speak in public about why and how our government has gone wrong and where and how it could be turned right.
I love the fact that if I am ever pulled into a jail some night, being accused of a crime I might or might not have committed, I can stand in front of a jury of my peers and have the chance to prove myself innocent or guilty with the help of my defense attorney. I love the fact that if there is circumstantial evidence against me that can be proven faulty, I might have a chance to be acquitted.
Because I might actually be innocent. I'm not saying OJ was innocent. That was not my argument. My argument is for the precedent that his case might have opened up to upcoming trials down the line.
If you're going to rewrite the laws to screw one guilty man over, then you have to be open to the idea that those same laws will screw an innocent man over, someday down the line.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Wouldn't you just love to sit down with Hilary and get drunk one night and hear what she has to say about blow jobs?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I'm grey girl PP. Usually see at least 2 sides to everything, and not so much the solutions a lot of the time. Hence me being a dodgy fence sitter.
Think what bu's b/f said about the OJ sich is correct but I can also see what she is saying too and to be honest trying to find a solution just makes me glaze over all numb. :eek:
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well bu my girl. That is a very impassioned and reasoned argument. And I agree.
I think the freedom to be able to speak is one that is being slowly eroded and I'm not prepared to let it go. The consequences would be too far reaching and sinister. I'm just not so sure where I stand when it comes to crime and punishment these days because I do think that unfortunately too much of the law has been way laid by spin. It's what slant can be put upon something to gain the best advantage for the accused. And I really cannot tolerate the fact that if you are guilty no one ever stands up and just says so anymore.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
The evidence was faulty, it was tainted, and that could happen to an innocent person who can't afford the "Dream Team" lawyers that OJ could afford.
That was what my argument was.
You rock bu! Truly you do!
I'd love for it to be like that too.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift