reply to post by nunya13
It is, at least when I read it... that this response was more high emotion then logic
Originally posted by nunya13
Originally posted by pacofunk64
It helps when you explain what the hell you are talking about
This shows the court system failed again...but this trial had so many holes I can see why she did not get charged. There has to be undeniable evidense [sic] that she committed this crime & there just wasn't.
Your entire statement makes no sense. You said the system failed. Then you admitted there wasn't enough evidence to convict her?
Last time I checked, our system was based on the idea of proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is to balance out people's emotions and assumptions about the accused. If there is not enough evidence to convict her, then yes, she should have been found Not Guilty. Looks like the system worked if you ask me. People's opinions about whether she did it or not do not count.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Did Nancy Grace's head explode?
A Son of Sam Law is any law designed to keep criminals from profiting from their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers. Such laws often authorize the state to seize money earned from such a deal and use it to compensate the criminal's victims. The term "Son of Sam" refers to the nickname of serial killer David Berkowitz, the subject of a notorious murder case in 1978.
In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime—if the criminal was convicted after the date lawmakers passed the law in the states where the crime was committed.