Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Aquittal and innocence

Aquittal and Innocence

Being let off a crime perhaps describes what happened with OJ Simpson. Although he was also found "not guilty" nobody really believed that he should have been. But the case against him must have failed for reasons rather than imagined reasons.

It is entirely different to the Michael Jackson case. For a start, the double OJ murder certainly displayed the usual elements of motive, opportunity and means. Tangible evidence was not presented that could determine guilt so it was the fault of the state that guilt was not established. A defendent does not have to prove that they did not commit the crime, if the prosecutor can not prove that they did. It is the job of the police to clearly establish guilt.

The case presented against Michael Jackson is also different as there is no forensic evidence, but not believeable "evidence" from the "victim". Or "lies" from the "con artist". Depending upon how one looks at it.

Many seem to want to believe that the Bashir documentary is "evidence enough" of abuse. But it is not. Michael Jackson said he "shared his bed" - the minor detail that he may not have been there himself - is not entirely clear. One can imagine all one likes. It is evidence presented by the prosection. And they had free run of Neverland and that means that the opportunity for evidence collection has been explored.

Now it is time to leave the poor man alone. Or he may develop more weird tendancies and it seems that America can not really cope with its modern day Osacar Wilde persecution trial. Lucky Michael Jackson did not take the stand or worse, try to defend himself.

Monday, June 13, 2005

NOT GUILTY

Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY on all ten counts.

Saturday, June 11, 2005

What Money can't buy

Latest Business News and Financial Information | Reuters.com Citibank has the most money of all the banks, apparently, putting aside 6 billion dollars for contingent liabilities was a bit of a sneeze, but they will get over it. They just had to pay out 2 billion for Enron exposure. That 2 billion was effectively stolen from their customers with their consent and was less than their exposure to Worldcom.

If Michael Jackson had that much money, he of course could not buy his way out of conviction. The jury remains out, and its little wonder with over 20 conviction decisions to wade through. It sounds like the court has handed over a huge legal assignment to the jury in a 98 page complex agenda.

Enjoy, then, these quotable quotes from New Criminologist.

I think that the one that applies in this case may be:

"A man without money need no more fear a crowd of lawyers than a crowd of pickpockets." William Wycherley, "The Plain Dealer", 1674.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Police - Crime vs Traffic

The real job

There is plenty of outcry in New Zealand about police sitting at the side of the road pointing a speed radar gun at the passing population of frustrated and sometimes frightened drivers. Frightened? The aggression or misbehaviour of many Auckland drivers is indeed a factor in road safety. There is no doubt that road accidents causes more than a reasonable proportion of early death than other forms of human activity that involve motion or mechisation. Univesality exposes us to each other in a very risky way. Our behaviour patterns and reactions are the very key to our survival. It may or may not be like other forms of crime in that it can be a consequence of frustration that we become lacking in the self-control dept. But when our muscles respond to the release of certain hormones we hope this does not translate to an additional 50 kms per hour of volocity on top as the acclerator is pushed down in anger. When we become angry, we lash out seeking satisfaction. A foot to the floor kind of reaction is the most dangerous form of unpredictability on the road. It need not be in anger, but at times when our attention is gathered by other things than paying attention to the detail of how our own vehicle is functioning and in relation to other vehicles hurtling or crawling along the highway.

This still does not answer why we need police to sit in their cars aiming a portable radar gun at us? Are random vehicles appearing over the crest of a rise or behind a favoured moterway signage blindspot more of a hinderance to safety than an aid to good behaviour? Probably not, and that is why the police seek to better our patterns of behaviour on the road. If they can prevent 400 deaths per annum, then they are doing four times more good than if they stopped every single murder.

It is fairly reasonable to argue that the lives of people who are connected in someway, however casual, to a murdering psychotic are in more need of police attention. But then, so many of us become murdering maniacs behind a wheel when someone or something has pissed us off. Like a parking ticket. We get behind the wheel and start letting off steam by punching down on the accelerator. Everyone has done it.

It is that behaviour, if we learn to correct it in our selves, prevents the dangerous spread of frustration between drivers. It would certainly help if drivers were able to simply able to keep their distances at least two whole seconds apart at all times. There would be far fewer accidents. Driving would be less frustrating.

And the police could concentrate their efforts on real criminals. The real stars of the 6pm news. Why do we want them sitting at the roadside?