mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

> Now, again, how do you respond to the fact that OJ WAS held legally
> responsible for the deaths of two people?

It is not only what happened in fact, but I also agree with the outcome of the civil case.

What do you claim I believe?

> >> You asked about how anyone would investigate; I'm pointing out you've
> >> just given an excellent starting point.
>
> > And from the beginning, I've told you why the lawyer told me it supposedly couldn't be done, even
>
> Ah, well, if a LAWYER told you...
>
> > by myself, in 1986, because after avoiding further arrest and conviction for one year, my record
> > was wiped clean,
>
> Which means it wouldn't appear on your public record. Doesn't mean it
> disappears from the face of the earth.

And how would the average person know I was a criminal, because other than prospective employers, I
know of no background checks, nor does anyone treat me as a criminal. It's made no difference in Japan,
even working for the government.

> > Refresh my memory.
>
> Lessee, DNA testing for all convictions, more uniform sentencing
> guidelines, decriminalization of certain drugs, etc.

Good. Would you care to attempt to describe these improvements for a few hundred posts, akin to what
people do to me while I ask for ever more detail and criticize you?

For example, what do you mean about DNA testing? That DNA evidence would be required for a conviction?
Do you expect that DNA evidence would always be available? What of cases in which there was no DNA
evidence, such as an old unsolved case, or in an appeal?

I am interested in hearing posters' ideas, also contrary to what you have accused me of in the past.

> >You seem not to recognize the problem above, even when I tell you I myself,
>
> Just because you tell me yourself does mean what you tell us is
> important.

Better law enforcement or legal system are not important?

What should we be posting about? The economy and jobs? International security?

> > Why doesn't the government also keep EVERYONE'S DNA on computer file
>
> Yeah, you'd think they'd've watched the X-Files more.

Why not convince me why it's not a good idea instead. DNA evidence is not always available, but it
could be useful in murder and rape investigation.

> > Recently I was reading an article of some man who was freed with only about $40 in his pocket after
> maybe 17 years in jail. Also, the actual criminal is thus still free.
>
> > That is not justice. (You might call it "life".)
>
> It isn't necessarily fair.

What should be done for such people even the legal system can recognize have not been treated fairly,
or have been punished wrongly? What of those wrongly put on death row or executed and their families?

> > But it is the "flawed" legal system which most posters do not presume to even discuss improvement,
> contenting themselves with attacking my posts.
>
> Again, they discuss things with you;

No, they put forth their claims about why my ideas don't work, as do you. It is I who must ask for
their ideas, as I did with you last post.

> you simply ignore what they say.

Because they simply refuse to agree my ideas can work, and becomes more likely to work as technology
improves. They even disagree with measures already in practice which I agree with, such as traffic
light cameras at intersections or traffic radar and cameras on highways.

> When pressed, you come up with bizarre statements about how you will
> punish criminals only, but never a clear statement on how you'll
> distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

How can I be any more clear than to propose people be monitored practically everywhere at all times,
even to have monitoring and tracking devices implanted in their bodies?

--
 "I'm on top of the world right now, because everyone's going to know that I can shove more than three
burgers in my mouth!"