View Single Post
  #11  
Old 11-16-2007, 03:11 AM
Edge34 Edge34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Flame Magnet
Posts: 4,830
Default Re: Barry Bonds indicted

I happen to think that its not much of a "perversion" of the legal system to pursue a case against someone who you believe perjured himself.

I happen to think Barry's rights were perfectly taken care of. He will get his chance to defend himself against these charges, and if they are proven false, he will never set foot in a jail. If he is convicted, he will rightfully go to jail. This particular case isn't about steroids, its about whether someone who can hit a lot of home runs should be above the justice system.

From wiki (save it):

[ QUOTE ]
A grand jury is part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. The grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens, must first decide whether there exists reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. The grand jury's decision is either a "true bill" (meaning that there is a case to answer) or "no true bill". Jurors typically are drawn from the same pool of citizens as a petit jury, and participate for a specific time period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, whether you like the way they're run today or not, nobody can argue that this is how they work, and the simple fact is that a group of people moved to allow this case to go to trial. This isn't going on the prosecution's word alone, nor is it the work of the currently-popular "rogue judge looking for camera time".

I'm white, and you may disagree with me as is your prerogative, but I don't have any dislike for Bonds due to his race. I do believe that if he is proven innocent of these charges (which is certainly possible, or more accurately "not guilty") then he should go free and I will be the first to say "hey, the justice system did what it was meant to do". But if he IS guilty, he should pay for his crime. This all would've been over a long time ago if he had admitted taking steroids (again, assuming he did) the first time around. If that's what happened, he basically gave the justice system the finger and put the home run chase ahead of honesty and integrity.
Reply With Quote