OJ kicked out of restaurant

[Zerzera]

But he was convicted--in civil court. So truthfully, the guy's guilty. By a court of law. Why are we arguing?

He's not convicted for the crime.

A restaurant holder might refuse service to anyone, but he's not allowed to discriminate.
This is what happens in a lot of clubs in Holland. The bouncers will keep out every group that looks like a group of Moroccans or Turks.
They will give reasons like; I don't know you or I don't like your face. If anyone could really prove that the bouncer is discriminating on ethnic origin, they would have a case. But most of the time it's not worth the hassle and as long as the bouncer doesn't admit to it you can't prove it.

I know it's important to always be critical towards your lawmakers and enforcers, but I don't think you should take it out on the people who, in your eyes, got away with a crime. Simply because you might not be objective to the case, or don't know all the facts.
That someone got away due to mistakes made before or during the arrest might be crude, but it ensures that your country doesn't turn into a police state, it's a price you should be willing to pay.

That brings us to the innocent. There's an interesting case going on in the Netherlands. A well known pollster, named Maurice de Hond, is on a crusade against the Public Prosecution Department because of some alleged mistakes they made. In one murder case he claims that the person in prison isn't guilty, and he points the finger at someone else, who just sued de Hond for calumny.

It is possible to fight for the rights of the falsely convicted, but not through attacking other people's character. Some of the cases were reopened after new evidence was brought forward by de Hond, or other reporters.

Yes it's wrong that some innocent people end up in jail, but on the other side public opinion often puts pressure on the people who have to give the verdict, and I don't think these people should be influenced by opinions.

PS: I don't think I have to discuss this any further. I can agree on what you are saying, but I only tried to put a nuance in general. I wonder if this post made any sense, because I am heavily distracted :grin:.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

I'm not saying that we should abolish courts. I do believe that, on the large majority, courts are the best solution we have.

However, they're not 100% right. There's not really a way they could be.

But when you say things like:

Unless you want to completely renounce the entire idea of freedom, justice and democracy, you should at least acknowledge that there is a reason for the existance of the courts.

You freak me out a little--you sound like a certain (current) US president. I'm not renouncing freedom, justice or democracy. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the courts aren't always right, and I have the right to question them. I understand why courts are there, and I understand that my day-to-day life is better because they're there. I also understand that I can't offer up a better solution.

In other words, I'm simply saying that under the same "freedom, justice, and democracy" mantra, you're also free to excercise your own, as long as you're not impeding on someone else's rights within the confines of law.

Yes it's wrong that some innocent people end up in jail, but on the other side public opinion often puts pressure on the people who have to give the verdict, and I don't think these people should be influenced by opinions.

I completely agree.

[Epinephrine]

But when you say things like:

You freak me out a little--you sound like a certain (current) US president. I'm not renouncing freedom, justice or democracy. I'm simply pointing out the fact that the courts aren't always right, and I have the right to question them. I understand why courts are there, and I understand that my day-to-day life is better because they're there. I also understand that I can't offer up a better solution.

LOL maybe I went a bit too far. I was going to talk about tacit consent and living in a democracy and all that, but I forgot which philosopher first described that (was it Mills?). Anyway I just wrote the first thing that came to my mind.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Don't you understand that you're helping the terrorists win?