@BD: Did you finish watching the Making a Murderer? If so, what did you think?
I watched the whole series. IMHO, I would have to have complete, undisputed evidence (beyond a shadow of a doubt,) in order to vote guilty. Almost everything about the case was screwed up. Nothing made sense. I've only sat on one jury, and it was not about finding the truth. It was about the DA winning at any cost, and the defense attorney doing any thing he could to persuade the jury. I don't want to spoil it for anyone else, but I feel this is the first attempt to allow the public know how corrupt our court system is. Rich people get off, and poor people feed the money making prison system.
We overuse the word corruption. It's corruption when the judge or the prosecution gets bribed. What you describe is the inherent flaw in a capitalist democratic republic: you get what you pay for. If you have more money, you can hire a better lawyer, and a better lawyer is your only defense against a venal prosecutor.
Agree completely Raz. Of course the DA wants to prosecute (win) and the defense lawyer wants to get their client off (at all costs). In most cases, the onus is on the prosecutor for proof, and because of that plenty of "guilty" parties get off scott free.
This was a "documentary" with a bias (as many are). They are able to edit and selectively omit facts, statements and issues that don't fit neatly into their story. While not as grossly biased as a Michael Moore "documentary", this is no more a realistic presentation of facts as Fox News "Fair & Balanced"....not that CNN or MSNBC are much better.
