given how the "duke case" has played out recently (amongst others):
... i'm less and less inclined to side with the "police" and "prosecutors". especially
with those who cite "grand jury indictments" as evidence!
my first reaction is when you do a criminal act, you lose some "rights".
(not berating/hounding you steph! but...) and we were part of a jury that established this as "fact" ?
by the way: since when did anyone
"lose" their "rights" ? the 'constitution' doesn't spell that out - even accused (or not) "criminals" have "rights".
why this 'automatic' assumption that the media 'tells' us 'someone' has 'confessed' and we assume it to be true - for want to legal reckoning or fact?
because it appears convenient? because we assume it to be true? because we think our legal system is infalliable and mistakes cannot be made? because we think lawyers are unimpeachable defenders of man's moral charecter?
why then, the quick rush to defame or defend someone? anyone? accused by the powers that be for some wrong doing? does katrina and her aftermath ring a bell? or does the current duke "rape" case ring one?
or am i simply going " 'on and on' about 'prosecutorial misconduct' and not naming enough names when it comes to the 'defence'." ?
"when the medical profession divorces itself from its own responsibility and makes itself an arm of the state, it's a dangerous path," said rife kimler, bush's lawyer.
do i think mr. bush is innocent or guilty? that's up to the jury to decide.
do i think the legal system is being made to play (and pay!) the fool in the process? absolutely!