Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Totally Inappropriate.....

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I left Lynn's message attached since this is the one of two that Lynn sent
which I want to respond.
I'm glad that you brought up the O.J. case as an example.
Let me preface with my belief that there is no such thing as perfection.
Perfection is a goal which we endevor to achieve but can never attain. With
that said, it is also my belief that we must never stop reaching for this
goal.
The law is not infallable - like codes, they are written by humans and are
open to interpretation. Every year the law libraries grow with new cases and
decisions which establish a new precedence. These are sited to manipulated
one side of an issue over the other in court. In addition to the problem
with the written law, there is the problem associated with human nature,
ethics, morals and character, which we have debate.
If O. J.'s attorneys were not able to show that human frailties and the lack
of perfection associted to the work habits (deception, corruption,
contamination and bigotry) were not at least plausable, O.J. would not be a
free man today. There are equally strong "suspicions" of jury corruption by
preconceived beliefs unchanged by physical evidence. Accusations arose that
a racial imbalance caused a majority of African Americans to free O.J. while
the predominantly Caucasion jury in Santa Monica found him liable.
>From all of this comes the reality that only O.J. and the spirits of Ron and
Nichole will ever know if he is guilty or not.
Do I feel he is guilty - damn right I do. But I did not judge my belief on
the media alone. I listened to every day of that trial (while trying to meet
work schedules) and paid attention to every witness. I heard parts of that
trial that the jury never heard - whether the information was damaging or
useful to the defense. I still don't know for sure of his guilt since there
was no eye-witness, but feel in my heart that if I were to have sat on that
Jury there would be only one conclusion I could have drawn - he was guilty.
The one thing that I have learned from all of this is just how complicated
the search for right and wrong can be when there are those who are
experienced in deception. It's occurs everywhere. In government, they are
known as Spin Doctors, in court the better attorney is the one who defends
on his ability to twist the truth and provide glimpses of opportunity that
leave a shadow of a doubt. If this were not enough, lawyers can use the new
science of Jury Consultants to leverage jurists based upon surveys that
jurists take to uncover the psycholgical predjudes that each might have.
We talked about Clinton's purported offenses. Lynn stated "But you and I can
and do make judgments all the time on what information we have available to
us.  We have to, it is how we function in life".  I don't believe we have to
when the consequences are condeming to a human being. We make value
judgments on our business, our roads to sucess or failure, our education,
religious preference, which team we think will win or lose, which code to
follow. When we decide to use inference, supposition, unsubstaniated
statements and accusations to make value judgments on other human beings, we
conclude injustice not justice.
When was the last time anyone made a value judgment on Monica Lewinsky,
Jennifer Flowers or Paula Jones. If the suppositions are correct, what kind
of character allows themself to break the bonds made between two people in
marrage. Do we excuse one party because they don't have anything to loose or
can't be held accountble for their actions?
We live in a world where information can be tampered with. Digital masters
(photographs) can be created that even the experts can not tell are phony or
real. The use of these photos is questionalble since we do not as yet have
encryption methods that ensure against tampering. We can create documents
and false taped communication. If we accept the premise that corruption
exists in our world (as the jury must have in the O.J. case) then why is it
so inconceivable that some orchestrated event is not at work in the
allegations. Monica Lewinsky was offered one million dollars by Penthouse
magazine. If she takes the money does this make her any less credible.
Only in the last ten years of so have we entered into the information age.
The intellegent use of Spin Doctors, Jury Specialists,and  Public Relations
firms are growing markets for those that want to create or change public
perception. Do you know when they are influencing you - I don't, but I can
guess?
Guessing is all that anyone can do today until we create controls that
validate the information we receive.
Yes, we can go on making value judgments every day on the issues that matter
in our lives - but step cautiously when making value judgents that affect
the lives of others.
Finally, Jim Adams SE wrote a very interesting post. I don't think I would
be as openly honest about those acts in my life that I am either ashamed of
or embarrased about. I don't know that I would lie about them but I might
consider bending the truth enough to throw off suspician. I do, however,
know that I would never lie to cover my mistake at the expense of another.
I admire Jim's honesty, and I think what he is saying is that every human
being has something they wish would not come to light - even Jim. However,
he would rather disclose the fact than lie about it. In my opinion, this is
admirable without professing to perfection.

Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Howard <lhoward(--nospam--at)silcom.com>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Totally Inappropriate.....


>Some people appear to be confusing our legal system of justice with the
facts.
>To be tried for a crime, civil or criminal, you must prove in a court of
law
>that someone is guilty.  Until that is done, the legal system must assume
that
>a person is innocent.
>When discussing perjury, and obstruction of justice proceedings that might
be
>brought against these people, the Court must assume that they are innocent
for
>now, until proven otherwise in a court of Law.
>But we are not held to that standard, and the Courts cannot even agree on
the
>guilt or innocence of someone.  Is O.J. innocent of guilty?  The courts
have
>said both.  But there is a fact of truth out there, either he did it or he
>didn't, and the court findings and what you or I believe will not alter the
>truth of the matter.
>If you witnessed a murder, saw someone pull the trigger, the Legal system
>cannot just take your word for it and convict him on the spot.  Even though
you
>know for a fact that this man is guilty, the Courts must still assume he is
>innocent until proven guilty.  Even if there is a video tape of the crime,
the
>courts treat him innocent until proven guilty.  But you and I can and do
make
>judgments all the time on what information we have available to us.  We
have
>to, it is how we function in life.
>In the case of Bill Clinton, it really doesn't mater what our judgments are
>until Mr. Clinton is up for re-election again (or possibly if we have a
>government that runs off the opinion polls).
>My point is that we have to make judgments about people all the time in our
>lives on imperfect information.  And we act accordingly.  We will do the
same
>with Bill Clinton.  And the Courts do not have the final say on if a person
is
>really guilty or innocent.  Guilty people are set free, and innocent ones
are
>convicted.  It happens all the time.
>One of the factors that determines our ability to function well in life is
how
>well we are able to judge the character of those around us based on
incomplete
>information.
>
>Lynn
>
>
>
>