but there is spirit of the law, and letter of the law

so while the spirit of the law was probably not broken, the letter of the law technically was

and this is where we get the notion any law will be taken to its extremes

it might not change the jurys mind... but its putting some people in view of millions of people - who may turn out to just be innocent people

but prison seems unjust ... a large fine seems more appropriate (depending on the size of the outlet)

well, he already had a prison sentence

as we discussed

the prison sentence was for the same thing

I thought initially it was for his mortgage problem thing... but hes already done his time for that

this would put our 1A and 5A at odds witch each other.. but I think 1A would win out here

this really is what the supreme court is for i would think

its not so much the right to due process... its the right to live a normal life after trial if not proven guilty

ha, the us has no such right

that's the equivalent of equal opportunity of outcome and is unobtainable

really anyone guilty in public opinion will always be guilty in public opinion unless a "greater evil" comes along to show that they were beyond saintly

but, this is also what slander and libel laws are for too

its equal opportunity

although it sucks in the US that your arrest is not scrubbed by default for a not guilty verdict

unless you go through like 100 hoops and wait 3-5 years

I dont know if you know this or not, but outside of the US,... people see the US as a "suing culture"

yeah that one is archaic

that would be a good topic for Will Chamberlain

we see it as suing culture

what wins, freedom of press or freedom due process

I mean given our history, it's obviously the first

Why was he filming them anyway I mean what good could that do after the defendants were public anyway?

OJ, the Duke Lacross Case, Laci Peterson, and other high profile cases

That’s funny @wacka considering how lose our libel and slander laws are compared to the rest of the world.

I'm sure he was filming to bring attention to it

there are also some other BS things, like if its found you were falsely imprisoned, you could still end up having to pay for any fees related with being released from prison. oh yeah, there are fees with that in some states. They also don't usually pay you for their mistake.

"oh yeah, turns out you were falsely imprisoned and had literally everything taken from you.... too bad, we are not paying you back for that

yeah if you dig deep enough, there's plenty of injustice to be found

false convictions overturned via DNA, etc

its innocent until proven guilty. And if found guilty, you are always guilty even if found not guilty later. you are still guilty

is it wrong, yes, can it be improved, yes, can it be eliminated? probably not

maybe the jurors should pay ;P

also, for profit prisons are a thing

the person making the mistake should be the one paying

well, technically it may not have been a mistake. There may just have been enough evidence to be found guilty, but not enough to show the opposite

I dunno if you could narrow it to a person... theres the arresting police, the evidence gatherers, the prosecution making a case, the jurors etc etc

beyond a reasonable doubt is a tricky thing