Pornographer sentenced to nearly four years in prison

For arguments sake:

Jurors found O.J. Simpson innocent.


Also, many innocent men were tried, sentenced, executed for murder that they haven't committed.

Jurors can be wrong. Jurors can be manipulated by good lawyers.

 

and $$$$$$$$$

 

Incorrect. Jurors found O.J. Simpson "not guilty". That is a much lower standard than "innocent". US Criminal courts do not address the question of innocence. It is a pillar of our legal system that one need not prove one's innocence, because one is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. A criminal court consists of the people (prosecution) v. the accused (defense). A finding of "not guilty" means the prosecution is unable to prove its case beyond the shadow of a doubt. It has nothing to do with innocence. Confusing the two is a common mistake, but the distinction is vital.

He was indeed found to be liable for Nicole Simpson's death in civil court, where the standard is much lower.

 

Are you a robot?

 

I am not a robot. Are you?

Very Turing of you to ask though.

 

Yes.

 

The jury's job is narrowly defined. They have to rule on the question asked, based on the evidence presented in court. The jury is not asked to make a determination of whether the acts were legal, merely whether or not the material is indecent. If those 12 members feel the material is indecent, , and that it was sold in the jurisdiction, they must vote to convict. We can hardly blame the jury for simply doing its job.

We can be horrified though, that the question was asked in the first place, with a man's freedom hanging in the balance.

To answer the question of whether or not I went to law school: no, I did not. These are concepts taught in any decent high school curriculum, or a basic "101" undergrad course. It is your duty as a citizen to know these things, because you may one day have to serve on a jury. It is in your interest because you or someone you love may someday be the accused.

 

i just assumed you went to law school seeing as you boast about your legal knowledge every chance you get, even when most of my arguments had nothing to do with legality.

 

I have not boasted about my legal knowledge, although I do apologize if it made you feel self conscious by putting it on display.

If you want to see boasting, go to the "semantics is important" thread. You could argue that i'm boasting about being fluent in five languages there. which wasn't nice of me.

 

lmfao.

go home.

 

It's okay. I know you meant well.

 

'Borrowing' ideas is plagiarism. I could get kicked out of school for 'borrowing' ideas and putting it in my essays.

And no, it's not legal everywhere. We have obscenity laws in Canada too. Nice try.

You're a sell out if you think NAMBLA is despicable and yet you won't stand up against it. Keep eating that soma.

 

funny, that's just what I was thinking of your position...

Well meaning, but in the end ignorant of how the law affects each and every one of us, and the consequences of taking short cuts on difficult issues.



I am well familiar with Canadian obscenity laws. They are much stricter than in the US.

And no, you cannot be kicked out of school for borrowing ideas and putting them in your essays, as long as you give credit to the author. Actually, the ideas don't necessarily have to be credited, it's the material that has to be credited. If you borrow Plato's concept of the "shadow on the cave wall", you don't have to cite it, but if you use a translation of the republic in quotation or paraphrase you have to give the translator/editor credit. The US constitution, furthermore, was written in a time before copyright laws and the whole concept of intellectual property even existed. Plagiarism was not then what it is now. So your claim that the constitution is "plagiarised" is complete bunk.

By your logic, much of the greatest works in literature and music, from Mozart to Shakespeare, are plagiarized. It just does not do to impose a new academic standard, then turn around and require authors of the past to conform to your new standard.

 

Ey I need a source for soma who can hook a brotha up?

 

Read the American Constitution. That should put you right to sleeeeeeeeeeep.

 

ZzZzZzZz

 

Bleh, bleh, bleh. I can get kicked out of school for plagiarising ideas. Thanks for telling me my school policies though. I'm sure you love hearing yourself talk.

Stop being such a fuckwit, please. It's not very becoming.

EDIT: If I said the words "shadow on the cave wall" without citing it, I would get kicked out of school. It happens. If I somehow forget to put it in quotations and give it proper citation, I get kicked out of school. And yeah, a lot of things are taken and used by classics. What's your point? It's still considered to be plagiarisms. Why do you insist on arguing this?

 

fucktwit is a great name for this guy *Hi 5*

 

*terrorist fist bumps*