Rubin 'Hurricane' Carter

I wonder why Carter felt the need to carry a handgun in the UK?:think

 

Well you already have said he had dealings with Mickey Duff... That or perhaps a Fireman in Basildon needed someone to help put out a fire!

 

No, they're very different things. I agree that you need very challenging standards, but that doesn't mean that everyone who isn't found Not Guilty has been proven innocent. That's why, in fact, acquitted defendants aren't called "innocent.". They're called "not guilty.". There's a difference between OJ Simpson, who was not found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and someone who is, for instance, known to be innocent as a result if a later DNA test it something.

"Proven to be innocent" means one is known to have not committed the crime. The fact that an acquitted defendant is *treated as if he is innocent* is another thing altogether. Carter was either a very lucky man or a very unlucky one, based on the time he served, depending on whether or not he actually did it.

I think he was quite lucky.

 

Simpson was found guilty at a lesser standard, thus he was sued. Carter was found not guilty. So there needs to be a 'presumption of innocence' if the 'system' is to work...

 

Carter was never found NOT GUILTY that is simply not true. In fact he was found Guilty twice and had that conviction set aside once on a technicality based on a faulty ruling by a judge who clearly didnt understand the case.

 

Simpson was found "liable," not "guilty."

Again, though, there's a difference between Carter's being treated by the criminal justice system [as if be is innocent[/I] and his actually being innocent.

There's a saying that in the US, the criminal justice system is based on the premise that it's better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be punished. One implication is that not everyone who gets to go free is innocent.

 

The first part of this is clearly true, but I disagree with the second part. The prosecution clearly withheld potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense - a constitutional violation. If the evidence was material, the decision was correct. The analysis was clear and imo correct, even if it led to a distasteful result. Blame the prosecutor.

 

Which is why for a period the USA could rightly stand proud as a world leader of Liberal justice.

 

Yay lets all stand proud that a murderer walked free thanks to liberal justice.

 

I always find it interesting that these so-called wrongly convicted people would have us believe that they are so hated that the establish would actually rather have two triple homicide perpetrators walk free in order to frame someone who is innocent and merely a pain in the ass (which nobody has proven Carter was). Now THAT would be one hell of a conspiracy. Unfortunately outside of Carter's fertile imagination and that of Norman Jewison, there wasnt any evidence that pointed to anyone BUT Carter. I agree with the poster above who stated he finds it hard to reconcile that people who love a sport cant come to terms with the idea that participants of that sport could be guilty of heinous acts. You have to remove the rose colored glasses and look at the situation objectively. If you do that the fact that Carter is a murderous anti-social POS is pretty obvious. Otherwise you either have an agenda or arent paying attention to the facts. The bottom line is that simply because Carter walked free does not make him innocent. Thats a myth hes been putting over for two decades and his fans have swallowed it hook line and sinker.

 

Or let us be proud that the innocent are not sent to a life without freedom or indeed in the USA, put on death row...

 

I agree that it's good that in the eyes of the law he be treated AS IF he's innocent, but that's a very different think than his actually BEING innocent.

 

No it is not, one means he is without freedom, the other means a person on the Internet believes he is guilty...

 

No...one means he has his freedom, and the other means he did not commit the crime. Two different things. What I think (or anyone else thinks) has nothing to do with either.

 

Actually both mean freedom. You are rightly entitled to an opinion, but as I said from my first post, unless you have something to give to the authorities that should be investigated further, your opinion is just that.