Why is it some people insist on explaining their position based on hypothetical situations and imaginary concepts when reality speak strongly against their view?
Right, but this sort of speculation has gone on with both sides of the argument. Rox had quite an elaborate imaginary scheme for how the coffee was so hot that it impeded the 'victim' from getting out of it. It demonstrates to me how easy 'jurers', on either side, can be manipulated. But I agree with you, there is no room for speculation when serious injuries and taking someone's property are concerned.
I find something about this thread rather alarming too. Seems when we find ourselves in agreement with a jury's decision, we praise the legal system. When we disagree, it's a "jury of monkeys".
For one thing, a legal system can be right and it can be wrong. If we cheer when it is right and boo when it is wrong, then we are on track. And I firmly believe in the now nearly extinct concept that there is a right and a wrong. My apologies to the relativists.
Sometimes we have to have a little faith in that legal system and consider those jury members MIGHT have heard a few more facts than those of us who gather our "conclusive evidence" from google, 27 other websites, the National Enquirer, and Bubba Joe Johnson down at the neighborhood watering hole. Our legal system sure isn't perfect all the time, but at present, it's the best we have.
This presumes a properly functioning legal system. I personally think ours is badly broken, especially in terms of the civil side of things. A few high rpofile cases define how broken our system is. An obviously guilty man, OJ, with overwhelming evidence against him is exonerrated of criminal charges (LA rejoices) but he is then found liable in civil court for murder. Rodney King is visciously beaten by a
crowd of armed officers. It is caught on video tape. The defense attorney explains to the jury that what they are seeing on the video type is not what is really happening. A jury buys it. Cowardly officers are freed. LA burns. A woman dumps hot coffee in her lap and is granted millionaire status for her efforts.
You might claim that these are unusual examples but a legal system has to be fair for everyone. Not just rich people, not just white people, not just victims of personal ignorance, not just corporations. The high profile cases are high profile for a reason. They represent our legal system to the people who live under it.
Our system is a great one. Maybe the best in the world. But it is not above reproach. It is not above scrutiny. It is not above or beyond repair. I think it is our duty to pay attention and priase the system when it get things right and to condemn it when it allows trained monkeys to supervent justice for reasons that are not relative to the case.
D) but I agree with you.