necoandjeff wrote:

> Come on Erik. I know you aren't that stupid. Surely you know the difference
> between objective guilt (the metaphysical state which cannot be sensed) and
> someone's claims regarding their own guilt.

Why can guilt (ie whether he did it or not) not be sensed? If he acquires a
knife, kills two people, sneaks back to his house, and somehow gets rid of the
knife, it could be seen or heard. The victims probably felt it as well.

> > And does it not bother you that OJ is demanded to pay millions of
> > dollars for being "found" more likely than not to be liable for two
> > deaths, as opposed to it being one punishment for actually doing it?
>
> No, it does not.

I see. So him being a sort of social outcast and liable for millions even with
the possibility of being completely innocent (ie did not do it) does not bother
you.

> It means the best that our sytem could do was determine
> that he was somewhere between 50 and 99% likely to have committed the
> crimes. I don't really care to subsitute my judgment for that of two juries.

I hope you feel the same if ever subject to the flawed US legal system.

--
 "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!"