Curious justice system in america

[Harbinger]

I wanted to pose a question.....considering the following:

in recent years, we've seen criminal cases tried in the american justice system that saw O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake and even Michael Jackson be set free... all of these individuals were MEN and they were AQUITTED of all charges..no matter how monstrous! and yet...at the same time...Martha Stewart, a WOMAN who is a celebrity with far more clout than O.J. and Robert Blake...and more on the level of Michael Jackson in terms of global noteriety..but SHE was found GUILTY! of something FAR LESS severe than any of the charges leveled against the three men i mentioned..and she had to serve prison time.

Does anyone beside me see a possible BIAS against powerful women with high level celebrity versus their male counterparts? What are your thoughts on this?

[Jacob Black]

Well I see those as VERY different things.. Blake and OJ were on trial for MURDER, not Insider Training. Michael Jackson was on trial for CHILD MOLESTATION.. There is SOOO much room for reasonable doubt on those type of cases than on one of insider training.. and besides there was paper proof against Martha, and she spent six months in like a candyland jail.

I don't think there is a bias, I just think there are degrees of varying severity. It is alot easier to find someone GUILTY of Insider Training then possibly sentencing a man or woman to death if you aren't absolutely sure...

[Vilandra]

I don't think it has anything to do with sex - it has to do with proving a case beyond reasonable doubt. There are plenty of male executives who are faced with similar fates as Martha for similar offenses.

Our laws protect you and I in the same way - if it can't be proven that we committed a crime then we should not be sent to jail. There is a danger in basing often life and death matters on whether you *think* someone did something or not. You have to know that they did to convict.

[Jill Monroe]

I do agree that in the case of Martha's being tried for "insider trading" that there was more conclusive evidence...but at the same time, Vil..just who are the MALE counterparts facing similar fates as she did? certainly not Kenneth Lay (i think thats his last name) of Enron which was the reason the S.E.C began scrutinizing such activity in the first place which ultimately lead to Martha being railroaded the way she did.

i also agree that its much harder to convict someone on trial for murder beyond reasonable doubt IF there isnt enough conclusive evidence..but i think ALOT of people would agree that O.J. Simpson LITERALLY "got away with murder"...there was QUITE A BIT of evidence not to mention common sense to suggest he was the only person who wouldve had any reason or anything to gain from brutally murdering Nicole. Its a proven FACT that men who abuse their wives/girlfriends (as he did nicole) and are left unchecked WILL KILL the wife/girlfriend..it isnt a question of IF ...its just a question of WHEN and there was MORE than enough record of his history of domestic violence and its INCREASING severity...but i digress.

It just seems to me that if you are a man with a high profile you will stand a much better chance of getting away with it than if you are a woman with as high a profile.

[Vilandra]

Look, she did it lol, she wasn't railroaded. We know her name because she is famous. Lots of people involved in the Enron thing are going to jail. Here is just one article about some of the people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/business/04enron.html?ex=1257224400&en=eabbcf1bd532926b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

They got from 2 and a half to 4 years plus probation and fines.

Just because men who abuse their wives often kill them later is not enough to convict a man of murder. Now regardless of whether I think he did it (which I do), I watched that trial, and the prosecution did not proove that he did it. The fact that he abused her in the past has no bearing on whether he did it this time.

I think it's taking the easy way out to just say that women are discriminated against, rather than to admit that women can be criminals too. Bottom line: Martha Stewart did it, she deserved to go to jail, she did, and if it was me did it and not her I would have got much worse.

And I HOPE that were I ever on trial for murder, and the prosecution did as poor a job presenting the evidence as they did in the OJ case, that I would not be convicted. Look at the civil case - that team did a much better job and were able to win the case.

[Timeless Beautie]

I thought the whole Martha Stewart trial was a travisty.... though they had evidance, they could've given her less severe sentance like a fine and probation. Come on it wasn't that bad. But here's Jackson who skated through his trial were... the friggin' jury was star struck and didn't focus solely on the case instead of being in the same room as Jackson. And the reason OJ got off is because he had a hell of a lawyer...

[Jill Monroe]

to vilandra: im well aware she did it! lol :haha: but im sure that even you noticed the almost "over the top" "OUTRAGE" reaction on the part of those seeking to press charges against her. someone even called her a "wanton criminal"..now GIVE ME A BREAK...she is no more a criminal than anyone ELSE who has tried to "get over". the only problem is...she got caught. But why is it that KENNETH LAY gets to walk free..while scores of others now lay in financial RUIN after the Enron scandal...or the former CEO of Kmart corporation who nearly drove Kmart into bankruptcy with his misappropriation of funds (in the MILLIONS of dollars) he merely "walked away" after a brief investigation...and wound up becoming a member of a board of directors for another large company...while scores of people lost their jobs and one of the most historical retailers of america nearly fell apart because of his EMBEZZELMENT. these two men were the "wanton crmiminals" ..not Martha...and yet people wanted to NAIL HER with as harsh a penalty as they could.

Im not saying that she DIDNT break the law...but i think the SEVERITY with which she was dealt with was far more harsh than that of Kenneth Lay and the crooked CEO at Kmart.

OJ is a murderer..plain and simple...i AGREE Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden didnt do as good a job as they could have....i guess i just feel that in HIS case...COMMON SENSE should have prevailed where the evidence failed...Simpson was obviously SMART enough to cover his ass just enough to give him an out via reasonable doubt..but come on..WHO ELSE had any thing to gain by murdering Nicole Brown..the mother of his two children and the woman whom he abused for over a decade PRIOR to the murder?

To Timeless: Michael Jackson...i HONESTLY dont know if i believe he molested this boy...i believe he may have been inappropriate with children in the PAST but that wasnt really relevant in this case. the prosecution had a WEAK platform at best..(especially with the whole "conspiracy to kidnap and hold the child and his family hostage)...and among other things..that obnoxious MOTHER really sealed the fate of this case. She was a proven liar, scam artist and very much the loose cannon..who was going to take her with any kind of seriousness? In MICHAEL's case..i do feel justice was properly served because it was QUITE obvious that the prosecution had no strong platform..it seemed more like a vendetta to me..especially when watching the D.A. on those press conferences he gave prior to the trial and the way he spoke of Jackson..it was almost as if he were SALIVATING to "get Jackson for good this time".

[Vilandra]

Martha was in jail for what 5 months? In camp cupcake? Insider trading is a serious crime. You wouldn't believe the regulations and forms and disclosures I had to do about my brokerage accounts when I worked in investment consulting. I had to actually sell off stock I owned before I even worked at the company because it could have been construed as insider trading. It is a big deal - it's certainly a big deal if you're one of the people who lose all your money because of it. Not unlike Enron. If you're going to go after Enron, you have to go after Martha too. Not to mention the fact that she lied to investigators about it. The guy who founed IMclone got 7 years.

The thing about Enron is that they actually changed legislation after it to make additional things illegal. And scared shitless the investment world as a result. Kenneth Lay et al are still awaiting trial, so they certainly are not off scott free, and Rigas from Adelphia was convicted and could get 30 years to be sentenced next week.

Okay, and just saying "who else had anything to gain by killing Nicole?" is not enough to convict someone lol. It's not about common sense, it's about proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just throw people in jail because you think they're scumbags. Isn't this sort of the thing what I always hear you speaking out against - government taking our rights away? And if you say that MJ's prior actions not being relevent to the case, then OJ's prior actions can't be relative to his either.

It seems like you see a difference in the cases based on whether or not you like the defendent ;) jmho

[Jill Monroe]

Okay, and just saying "who else had anything to gain by killing Nicole?" is not enough to convict someone lol. It's not about common sense, it's about proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't just throw people in jail because you think they're scumbags. Isn't this sort of the thing what I always hear you speaking out against - government taking our rights away? And if you say that MJ's prior actions not being relevent to the case, then OJ's prior actions can't be relative to his either.

It seems like you see a difference in the cases based on whether or not you like the defendent ;) jmho

as for Martha/Enron/Kenneth Lay etc...you articulated far better what i was trying to say.. which was that AFTER Enron was when the laws and proceedings were changed, and MORE was added in that could be subjected to scrutiny...and it was AFTER that when Martha came under fire. If Kenneth Law is "Awaiting trial" THAT is certainly news to me....i understood it to be that he walked away while some of his UNDERLINGS took the fall.

and as for OJ/Michael Jackson..its FAR more difficult to proove a case of child molestation than it is a murder trial. The prosecution in OJ's trial did NOT play up the fact that there was a pattern of abuse ENOUGH to make it something to consider, while in Michael's case..The prosecution screwed up by adding in the felony charge of "conspiracy to kidnap a child and as family"...they were never going to be able to proove that, given the confusing timeline of all the events in question AND they ALREADY had a weak and flimsy case all around..and RIGHT before the prosecution was supposed to REST during the trial proceedings ..they decided to try to bolster their case by asking to admit "past acts of molestation"--NONE OF WHICH HAD BEEN PROVEN. now tell me if THAT isnt flimsy and desperate? even the JURY didnt really allow that to factor into their verdict descision. Say what you will...i think that in OJ's case "past incidence" SHOULD have been made relevant given all that we know about the relation between domestic violence/murder...where as in Michael's case the prosecution had no real leg to stand on...so they tried to use "past incidence" that had no real validation. So having said all that, I must respectfully disagree with you on your assesment that my statements/position on this matter are based on "who i like" ;)

i am VERY MUCH against the government (especially under this current administration) meddling in our lives and infringing on our rights..i also think that in the case of MALE CELEBRITIES...that the ball is almost ALWAYS dropped by the prosecution..and thats why murderers like OJ walk free.

[Vilandra]

as for Martha/Enron/Kenneth Lay etc...you articulated far better what i was trying to say.. which was that AFTER Enron was when the laws and proceedings were changed, and MORE was added in that could be subjected to scrutiny...and it was AFTER that when Martha came under fire. If Kenneth Law is "Awaiting trial" THAT is certainly news to me....i understood it to be that he walked away while some of his UNDERLINGS took the fall.

Yes, Lay, Skilling and Causey all go to trial in January. Let me look for something...okay here is some info on it http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050610/ap_on_bi_ge/citigroup_enron_glance_1

What Martha did was already illegal before Enron.

See the thing you have to understand about Enron is it was unprecedented - board members took the word of the people whose job it was to make sure everything was right and no one dreamed that something like this could go down. And so of course it was taken advantage of. So no one ever thought there needed to be these laws, because there were already failsafes in place to prevent what happened from happening. And when it did anyway everyone was shocked. (I've never seen so many people freaking out at once lol).

i also think that in the case of MALE CELEBRITIES...that the ball is almost ALWAYS dropped by the prosecution..and thats why murderers like OJ walk free.

I completely agree with your assessment about the ball being dropped by the prosecution. My entire point is that is what happened in the OJ trial (and from what you've said the MJ case, though I did not follow that closely) and thus justice in fact was served.

[Timeless Beautie]

The thing about it no one really knows if Jackson really did commit the crime. Maybe not to that woman's son, but to other people. It was just the lack of evidence. I don't know much about legal things, but I do know that money is nothing. What OJ did was murder... a human life is way more important then money. And call me a sucker, but I happen to care about the safety of little kids. I've seen what molestation and sexual abuse can do to a person. I know two little girls who were molested by their mother's boyfriend. I think it serious when you mess with people feelings. Money is not that big of a deal. I don't know why people are so obssessed with having or losing money. It just creates problems. I'd rather have my health and happiness before money.

[Vilandra]

We were discussing two seperate situations, not comparing money vs murder.

And please don't insinuate that I don't care about the safety of little kids. I just also happen to care whether people are convicted of a crime without proof and based on conjecture.

[Timeless Beautie]

Sorry I got a bit carried away.... now that I read my post it was a bit off topic.... and I didn't mean it that way. I'm weird when it comes to the American justice system. I don't really know much, but I know what I see on TV and sometimes media doesn't give an accurate protrayal of high publicized cases. Children are dear to my heart and I think it's wrong to do that to them. I'm such a mothering type. The whole Jackson case was hard for me to take a side... one day I'd think he was guilty then next I was on his side. That's why I'll never be a lawyer. Maybe a social worker, but not a lawyer.

[Jill Monroe]

<<rings bell!>> BREAK LADIES! :D ;) lol

anyway, Vil, im willing to conceed to you on ONE aspect of my argument...about the seemingly inequal punishment given to men vs. women in cases of white collar crimes on the level of Martha Stewart and Kenneth Lay.....the reason why? take a look at THIS : http://www.screen-gems.net/showthread.php?p=7561#post7561

after reading that article...i was definately able to say "okay..so perhaps the justice system is NOT unfairly biased against women in all cases such as this. ;)

[Osiris]

This thread smells of bias. There is a lot of reaching going on here at best! Am I the only one that watches the news? There are many Male executives that are getting the axe and there not going to camp cupcake.

There is no male/female bias in favor of men, statistics alone defy that argument. People are less willing to convict a woman based on sympathy.

Personally, I believe the real issue of this post has to do with the fact that Michael Jackson was found innocent, and those who wanted to see him burn throw up the OJ case to try to compare and to not appear prejudice throw in Blake for good measure.

Im sorry but it appears that people have a problem with someone rich, black, and famous not being hung. This case and the reactions that followed stink of prejudice.

Maybe its just me...but its time to get over it.

[Jill Monroe]

Wow...i dont think anyone here is trying to mask their "prejudice", Osiris.

the main idea of the thread was to suggest that it SEEMS that high profile celebrity men can get away with anything...even MURDER while high profile women are almost always NAILED.

speaking for myself..i DO believe O.J. Simpson is guilty as hell...there are many things that suggest he not ONLY brutalized Nicole (a fact that NO ONE seems willing to address despite much proof of it) but KILLED HER. who ELSE had anything to gain from it!? seriously...his being BLACK has nothing to do with my initial feeling that there is an inequality in the justice system of america.

If you look at my post in the Micheal Jackson thread in "electronica express" youll see that i expressed happiness for his getting past this trial...and that my hope was that he LEARNED from this and would never place himself in that position again. it was a wake up call for him. the i ALSO explained earlier on in this thread how shoddy and dodgy the prosecution's case in the michael jackson trial was.

you cant suggest EVERYONE here "wanted to see michael jackson burn and used the OJ case" because thats a sweeping accusation that isnt fair.

right is right...and THAT transcends skin color and even GENDER. Vilandra definately pointed out that Martha got CAUGHT doing something wrong and i couldnt deny that. I just felt that the scrutiny she went through at the hands of the media and the way the prosecution seemingly SALIVATED at the idea of trying to "nail her to the utmost extent of the law" was NOT PRESENT in the cases of Kenneth Lay and even Bernard Ebbers.

[Osiris]

Let me clarify my post...I never said that everyone was masking prejudice, but I do feel that there is a little reaching going on. I don't think there is a gender bias against women.

I will admit that I went a little over the top by saying that wanting to see MJ burn was prejudice, I guess Im still mad at Nancy Grace and Court TV and their "balanced" reports.

As far a OJ goes....I don't know what really happened, but I know what the verdict was. Everything is speculation at this point.

I didnt mean to imply everyone for the record.

[Vilandra]

there are many things that suggest he not ONLY brutalized Nicole (a fact that NO ONE seems willing to address despite much proof of it)

I am willing to address it, I just don't think because he beat her that it follows that he killed her (as far as a court of law goes).


Thank you Spell for acknowledging my point of view. Which was saying that there is not a bias against women vs men - and Spell agreed there, so I think its a moot point O.