"Eric Takabayashi" <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote in message 
news:418C377C.C2450B4E@yahoo.co.jp...
> Kevin Gowen wrote:
>
>> You are misunderstanding what Jeff meant by "metaphysical".
>
> jeff, Rykk, and Raj most certainly meant "detectable to the senses" (all) 
> or
> "verifiable fact" (Rykk). (I hope they do not mean "SUPERNATURAL" 
> metaphysical, caps
> not mine). If you or they demand quotes, I'll be happy to provide them.
>
> I am still waiting (but it's been less than half a day) if they would like 
> to explain
> how OJ and his "guilt" in any sense of the word are different from that of 
> myself or
> anyone else they have not met or conducted actual background checks on, or 
> whose
> offenses they have not directly witnessed or experienced.
>

Guilt isn't different based on background checks or direct witness or 
experience.  But the State is only empowered to punish provable guilt in the 
US.  Also, our constitution guarantees presumed innocence until guilt is 
proven. Without presumed innocence a country can degrade to the point where 
being accused of committing a crime is as bad as being convicted.  I.e.  if 
you are accused you are convicted.  I hear it is like this in Japan, but 
that is just hearsay.  I haven't actually read anything authoritive on the 
subject.  But any country that convicts a very high percentage of those 
brought to trial certainly deserves a closer look.

Rykk