1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Convict Bonds with Evidence, Not Charges

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by creamora, Nov 25, 2007.

Page 2 of 30
  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    That's the problem. Most people are muddling the two things. Barry Bonds may or may not have used steroids and hit home runs because of it. That has nothing to do with this perjury trial or the outcome of it.

    Enough circumstantial evidence has come to light suggesting that he did use steroids for it to be ridiculous not to expect the popular media to have commented on it and offered every opinion under the sun about it.

    That has nothing to do with the perjury charges he is facing right now, in which he is getting the same legal presumption of innocence anyone else would get until he gets his day in court. That column really was pointless. It was based on a fallacy. Bonds hasn't been thrown in jail without a trial. He'll get his day in court and he'll get a fair trial with a better legal team than you or I could afford. So what was the point of that column?
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 25, 2007
    #13
  2. Write-brained

    Write-brained Guest

    True, but come back to me when they're perfect. I've seen a couple of their cases unravel into an ugly mess.

    This is where I see Fenian's point. Too often people or agencies get away with murder without the media scrutiny because the media is looking at percentages or personality.
     
    Write-brained, Nov 25, 2007
    #14
  3. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

    [​IMG]
     
    TheSportsPredictor, Nov 25, 2007
    #15
  4. Fenian_Bastard

    Fenian_Bastard Guest

    So, given a high enough profile case, and a prosecutor willing to leak, then the media has every right to accuse someone repeatedly of committing a crime?
    And people wonder how it is that folks believe Vince Foster was murdered.
     
    Fenian_Bastard, Nov 25, 2007
    #16
  5. Write-brained

    Write-brained Guest

    For the press to go around and say that the feds hardly ever lose a case at trial is stupid. They lose more at trial than they win.

    No doubt the Federal conviction rate is impressive, but I've always understood it to be a bit fabricated. Let's look at 2004, the first numbers I found from their own website:

    "Cases were terminated against 83,391 defendants during 2004. Most (90%) defendants were convicted. Of the 74,782 defendants convicted, 72,152 (or 96%) pleaded guilty or no-contest."

    83,391 defendants
    74,782 - plead guilty or no-contest.
    8,509 - found not guilty.
    2,630 - found guilty at trial

    The reason so many plea guilty is not always because they're guilty. It's because they're going to get 10 - 100 times the sentence if they are found guilty after a trial. So what do they do? They take a plea deal and plea to a lesser charge. Everybody wins. The feds get their conviction and the defendant goes home in 13 months instead of 60.


    Here's a great story about it:

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_464095.html
     
    Write-brained, Nov 25, 2007
    #17
  6. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    [​IMG]
     
    Piotr Rasputin, Nov 25, 2007
    #18
  7. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    I knew I should have copyrighted that when I had the chance. :D
     
    Chi City 81, Nov 25, 2007
    #19
  8. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Very good post, Write, and I'll only take exception with part of it.

    People don't plead guilty who aren't guilty. People might plead guilty who would roll the dice and try and beat it in a state court, but I doubt highly anyone pleads guilty who isn't guilty.
     
    zeke12, Nov 25, 2007
    #20
  9. Write-brained

    Write-brained Guest

    Guilty is not a black and white term. Well, it is legally, but not to the guy who was unknowingly renting his house to a man keeping drugs and an arsenal in the house. Feds got the indictment because they felt the 60+ old man should have known what was going on, despite the fact he lived two towns away and was taking care of his ailing wife. Man took the plea deal with some time but mostly probation. Why? Because he was facing more than 10 years if I remember correctly.

    So, yes, it happens. The feds are by the book. Compassionate, they are not.
     
    Write-brained, Nov 25, 2007
    #21
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Zeke, All you have to do is survey enough black people to know this is not true. Many poor, black men are so cynical that they can't get a fair shake, they pragmatically take the plea deal rather than what they think is the certainty of the longer sentence of what they see as a near-certain trial conviction. We can't know what percentage of indictments are justified, but even if there is only a small percentage of cases brought against innocent people, it's a sure thing that there are at least some people taking plea deals even though they know they are not guilty. In their minds, they're being pragmatic.
     
    The Big Ragu, Nov 25, 2007
    #22
  11. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    That is probably correct.
     
    zeke12, Nov 25, 2007
    #23
  12. Write-brained

    Write-brained Guest

    This picture has been bugging me. Who is this directed at? Me?
     
    Write-brained, Nov 25, 2007
    #24
Page 2 of 30
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page