2007-07-27 11:22:18 · 9 answers · asked by sokrates 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
one thousand,
Justice is justice. I'm almost a good Platonist in this regard. :-) If the preponderance of evidence indicates that Vick is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then I will acquiesce with the jury decision. So far, the system has worked for OJ Simpson and Mike Jackson. Let it work for Vick.
2007-07-27 12:02:11 · update #1
People answering this question are already convicting Mike. You have no idea whether he did it or not. Do you have access to the evidence pertinent to this case? I doubt it. Let due process work.
2007-07-27 12:04:43 · update #2
You do not need to sit on the jury to convict someone. One definition of "convict" is "To show or declare to be blameworthy; condemn."
Haven't you ever heard of someone being convicted by the court of public opinion?
2007-07-27 14:56:25 · update #3
Absolutely. Everyone is entitled to due process. To decide simply based on media reports is foolhardy. Consider the case of the Duke lacrosse team. How many people do you think "convicted" those guys before waiting for a jury to decide?
2007-07-27 11:27:39 · answer #1 · answered by joeletherton 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I really doubt if any of us that are reading Yahoo Answers is the judge or will be on the jury when/if this goes to trial. In that case, none of us will be the ones that convict him.
In addition, because of that, none of us are bound by the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty". We can think he's guilty or innocent if we want. If we make statements or put something into writing that is incorrect, Mike Vick can sue us as individuals for slander or libel if he can prove that (1)we knew our statements were incorrect and (2) that he has suffered harm as a result of our statements. If he can't prove both of those, he won't win a slander or libel suit against us.
2007-07-27 20:13:29 · answer #2 · answered by Mama Pastafarian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
NO!!! He is not going to get away with having high priced attorneys buy his way out of trouble (a la OJ Simpson). I don't give a rat's a$$ about due process b/c he is just another spoiled athlete who thought he could get away w/ this bull$hit. Forget it! IT was HIS house--don't tell me he didn't know what was going on in his house--for sure he benefited from this. WHat happened to those dogs is sickening, deplorable, and repulsive--he is in someway responsible and needs to be shunned by the entire legion of NFL fans to show that we do NOT condone his behavior.
2007-07-27 18:31:55 · answer #3 · answered by zz 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Are we also going to wait and see if Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay are still guilty too?
The man's guilty by association. And I have no doubt that he did it in the dining hall with the candlestick.
2007-07-27 18:27:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. He did it. Just because you aren't convicted does not mean you didn't commit the crime. It merely means that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. After all....look at OJ.
2007-07-27 18:28:19 · answer #5 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is not up to me to convict him at all! I'll leave that to others!
It seems the NFL and his team has as he won't be playing!
2007-07-27 18:27:35 · answer #6 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not exactly. I'm going to wait for a jury to decide, and then, once they've decided, I still won't care.
2007-07-27 18:26:34 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not going to convict him
but I do think he did it ... and I think he deserves his day in court
2007-07-27 18:27:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The court convicts; I don't.
Thanks for asking!
2007-07-27 18:31:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋