RedsZone.com - Cincinnati Reds Fans' Home for Baseball Discussion - View Single Post

BlackPete Ibold · 02-07-2013, 04:24 PM

Without grabbing a soapbox, (or a high horse), wanted to make a comment about "innocent until proven guilty". This is, and certainly should be, the standard notion for a Criminal conviction. It is NOT, and most certainly should NOT be the standard for how society views a particular person or act.

In essence, our framers believed that imprisonment was such a harsh penalty that they 'would rather free 10 guilty men than convict 1 innocent one'. But that standard does not exist in other areas of the law, like civil tort law.

Look at OJ Simpson. He was aquitted in the criminal case for murder, but found responsible for the act of killing Ron Goldman and his ex in a civil lawsuit. Do these facts make him 'innocent' in the eyes of society? I'd say heck no. Take Casey Anthony -- aquitted by a jury but certainly guilty in the eyes of the public.

And this is how is should be. If all the formal requirements for a criminal conviction are not present, the law must protect all of us equally and be blind to the (horrible) nature of the charges. Braun hiding behind the technicality of transport of his samples is fair because that is the way the system was supposed to work based on the collectively bargained agreement that created it.

But as a society (or even just as individuals) we are not forced to follow the same narrow rules that govern legal cases. We each should have the sense to know what is and isn't, regardless of a claim of a Govt, Sport, team, or player.

As such I do not feel even a bit unfair to judge Casey Anthony and OJ guilty of murder, and to judge Ryan Braun, Roger Clemens, and B*nds all guilty of using steroids.

(note -- not comparing juicing to murder, but the legal principles and the public responses do have much in common.)

02-07-2013, 04:24 PM	#38
BlackPete Ibold Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: NC Coast Posts: 68	Re: Ryan Braun busted again? Without grabbing a soapbox, (or a high horse), wanted to make a comment about "innocent until proven guilty". This is, and certainly should be, the standard notion for a Criminal conviction. It is NOT, and most certainly should NOT be the standard for how society views a particular person or act. In essence, our framers believed that imprisonment was such a harsh penalty that they 'would rather free 10 guilty men than convict 1 innocent one'. But that standard does not exist in other areas of the law, like civil tort law. Look at OJ Simpson. He was aquitted in the criminal case for murder, but found responsible for the act of killing Ron Goldman and his ex in a civil lawsuit. Do these facts make him 'innocent' in the eyes of society? I'd say heck no. Take Casey Anthony -- aquitted by a jury but certainly guilty in the eyes of the public. And this is how is should be. If all the formal requirements for a criminal conviction are not present, the law must protect all of us equally and be blind to the (horrible) nature of the charges. Braun hiding behind the technicality of transport of his samples is fair because that is the way the system was supposed to work based on the collectively bargained agreement that created it. But as a society (or even just as individuals) we are not forced to follow the same narrow rules that govern legal cases. We each should have the sense to know what is and isn't, regardless of a claim of a Govt, Sport, team, or player. As such I do not feel even a bit unfair to judge Casey Anthony and OJ guilty of murder, and to judge Ryan Braun, Roger Clemens, and B*nds all guilty of using steroids. (note -- not comparing juicing to murder, but the legal principles and the public responses do have much in common.)