[lbo-talk] Re: Perry Mason

lweiger at umich.edu lweiger at umich.edu
Fri Mar 25 11:10:01 PST 2005



> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:40:01 -0800
> From: "Jordan Hayes" <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Perry Mason
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Message-ID: <02fb01c5316a$0e068590$1048a8c0 at PAD2>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Luke writes:
>
> > How much time would it take to infer the guilt of OJ
> > Simpson from a cursory glance at the most damning evidence?
> > I'd say about a minute; five tops.
>
> Well, that's the problem. My first answer to your question was "all of
> it" -- and that's what we have juries for. The fact that the rest of
> the non-Jury population feels that they have the ability to make a valid
> decision about something is just lunacy. The fact that he was acquitted
> should underscore that point to you,

The fact that he was acquitted ought to underscore the following point to you: though trial by jury may generally be a good thing (I think it is), juries don't necessarily issue the appropriate verdict. But, really, this is pretty pointless unless you want to argue the facts of the case.


> > I was under the impression that perhaps Schiavo isn't a
> > vegetable. (I could be dead wrong about that. Though I haven't
> > paid much attention to the case, it's apparent that there's a
> > lot of bullshit floating around out there.)
>
> I'm laughing just reading this. You've just made my point concretely:
> you (and most of the media I've encountered!) have absolutely no place
> forming an opinion about this issue. Period.

I have no place proclaiming an opinion because I haven't bothered to form one. Otherwise, I'd probably have a fairly well-reasoned one. Fetishizing trial by jury doesn't make for a convincing defense of the practice.

-- Luke



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list