FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2003, 06:32 AM   #1
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nowhere Land
Posts: 441
Default Isn't It Obvious?

It can be any case. It can be the O.J. Simpson case, or the Laci Petterson case, or in our locality it's the Vizconde.

When asked by people what our my thoughts on such cases. I answer, "I don't know."

Because I really don't know and because of something else.

Back when I was young, there was an incident in school. A boy was accused of theft. Being very unpopular, he was easily thought of by everybody as the culprit. The stare, the whisper, the joke...the curses...if you were the accused...you could see laughter, you could hear the whisper, you could feel the eyes.

Few days have passed before it was learned that the misssing objects wasn't missing after all. The joke stopped, the whisper turned to other things, the stare turned to other things...but no apology was given...and in history of man, no apology will ever be given in situation like this.

No one has ever gone to the wronged, and said he's sorry for the "stare."

So when a board comes up in the Infidels asking for comments on the Laci Peterson. I refused to post a comment condemning the man, for God knows, if he's not the culprit, I won't be coming up to him to say "I'm sorry."
Rousseau_CHN is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 06:54 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: U.S.
Posts: 2,565
Default

I have thoughts like this a lot.

I form opinions on this kinds of situations - it's almost impossible not to. But, I tend to avoid voicing them. I tend to especially avoid commentary on the outcome of trials that seem "ridiculous".

Because I wasn't there. I don't know what the real evidence is. As you say, I just don't know.

Jamie
Jamie_L is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 07:04 AM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO
Posts: 3,515
Default

I agree with the above comments.

I believe that this is the true spirit of the proposition that a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I will not say that a person is guilty of any crime until he has confessed to that crime or been convicted by a jury in a court of law.
Alonzo Fyfe is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 01:07 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY
Posts: 14,394
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
I agree with the above comments.

I believe that this is the true spirit of the proposition that a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I will not say that a person is guilty of any crime until he has confessed to that crime or been convicted by a jury in a court of law.
This would seem to be the safe, tactful, and IMO, correct assertion. I too, usually forego judgement, although I will give opinions or speculations based on whatever facts I might have at hand. But I would rarely go so far as to proclaim someone's guilt. OTOH, after cases like Susan Smith (drowned her kids in a lake - blamed a fictitious black man), no one is not suspect either.
Shake is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:10 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.