and not on the Jury. I refuse to pass judgment on the evidence when the only
evidence I see is that presented with the media spin. Passing judgment on media
presented evidence is only for the badly mis-informed and ignorant.
Had I been on the jury, I well may have reached a different conclusion.
As for Martha Stewart, and Ken Lay (and the other Enron types), the main reason
(not that I agree with it) for the seemingly light sentencing is that for
non-violent crimes, the Feds pass out lighter sentences, reserving the prison
space for the violent offenders. I also realize there are widely differing
opinions as to what the definition of a violent crime is.
Where I get critical is that the prosecution in such cases allow for such long
passage of time that the defendant is allowed plenty of time to launder and hide
the proceeds of their actions, and not enough effort in the sentencing is given
to the recovery of the assets so stolen. Also I find that the fines assessed
in the cases of these multi-million thefts are way too little and not consistent
with the crime.
----- Original Message -----
From: G
?
Uh......what did the press have to do with the overwhelming DNA evidence in
the case??
Believe me, i share your mistrust of the press, but it has nothing to do with
the very obvious, and i mean VERY OBVIOUS fact that a man got away with murder.
You simply cannot argue logically to the contrary. Period.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
