Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/19/...ex.html?hpt=T2 [cnn.com]


Read the article - the link is above.


I mean I don't care that the dude is dead. But I'm pretty goddamned sure he's right, no matter what you are not supposed to be charged with a crime twice. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They didn't meet it, so the case was thrown out (the murder anyway)..... Regardless of the circumstances of new evidence he should not have been able to be charged with the crime again... interesting that the supreme court can do whatever they want, just because they say so..

In this case, I agree with the court.

The thing is, he admitted it in explicit detail so he did do it and he was bragging about it.
New evidence came to light, I don't care who the hell got to it first - it's proof.
And he's a rapist murdering bastard so I don't care how unconstitutional it was - in this case I agree with the court.

Under any other circumstances though, I would not have agreed (like if he didn't write those letters for example).


Great, does this mean OJ will finally get a proper trial? Because I mean really, he so did it and the court was so lenient.


Even though technically the Supreme Court can't do something like this - they think they can and no one stops them. They are there to settle disputes between the House and Senate - not make laws.
But hell, they legalized Abortion, which in of itself is breaking the law, they can do whatever the fuck they want so long as they can get away with it.

Also, I'm not 100% for Double Jeopardy either. Sure, it protects rights and all that but there are so many criminals that slip through the cracks and new evidence seems to turn up after the trials are over. So they did do it, there is proof for it, but shit outta luck I suppose.

I dunno, I'm not upset that the dude is dead, it just concerns me the amount of power the supreme court thinks it has

It was pretty stupid of him to confess it all after he was cleared and I think that the court did the right thing on this occasion. I think we have the same double jeopardy law in the UK and it has its good points and bad points. It does protect people's rights so that they don't get harassed by recurring trials for their whole life if they didn't do something but the prosecutors think they did. But at the same time, it lets people slip through the net and if new evidence comes up (DNA etc.) then I think retrials should be made available if there is substantial evidence that the court was wrong first time around.

Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.
~
The truth is out there...anybody got the URL?
~
Don't forget to be awesome.

Well isn't this exactly the same situation as OJ? I could be thinking of someone else, but a famous killer who got off wrote a book detailing exactly how he did it...

Ok don't eat me. But i read it and i'm a little confused. I get what double jeopardy is, but confused about this case?

♥. Just another day like any other,
Nothing in the sky said run for cover,
There was no parade,
No lights flashing,
No songs to sing along the way. ♥

What are you confused about? specifically?


Also, some other people I've talked to about this case brought up a good point. A lot of people are focusing on the emotions of the case, not the logic. Whether he did it or not, compassion for one grieving family could potentially severely disrupt a legal system that could cause grief to hundreds if not thousands of families. If we break just one rule, without proper appeal and law changes then it becomes a personal power play in the courts. Thus undermining our entire judicial system.

Our knee-jerk reaction is to let the bastard burn. But that isn't the LEGAL answer. If someone wrecks your car, I know my knee-jerk reaction would be to break the dude's neck. Is that the right thing to do?

Nope.