*dramatic eyeroll*

[conuly]

I'd be more touched if, y'know, I had actually defended anybody. Which I didn't. I never took a stand on his conviction, I never said that he should've killed and gotten away with it, all I said was that, according to the CNN article, the reasons behind his sentencing were ridiculously absurd. Any one of us could face a wrongful conviction and bad sentencing if "well, he didn't look emotional enough" were considered, and yes this means me.

Edit: I'll post a calmer reply when I'm... um... calm. Right now I gotta study. Djusk' a.

Comments

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

There is something basically wrong with her, isn't there? Beyond the defensiveness and the lack of reading comprehension skills, I mean.

Just so you know--you stated your position clearly and effectively. The communication breakdown here isn't on your part.

[conuly]

No, you hush. This is obviously a sensitive issue for her, I wasn't expecting that. People do tend to react strongly with personal issues. And... stuff... yeah. *groans*

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

OK, maybe the problem is *just* the defensive. I mean, you clearly said "x" and she screamed "omg I can't believe you said 'y'" and you said "but I . . ." and she screamed again and other people said "but she . . ." and she screamed some more.

Sensitive issues or problems aside, the communication breakdown *still* wasn't on your part.

[conuly]

Yeah, probably, but being upset does tend to blind one to... um... stuff.

[spitefairy.livejournal.com]

I agree completely. I think people need to understand the guilty should get a balanced sentence.

[conuly]

See, that's what I don't get. I didn't even fill my entry with my normal rant about how the death penalty is wrongwrongwrong, so... *sighs*

[thren0dy.livejournal.com]

I didn't really see that you were defending him OR villifying him, just stating that it seemed his sentence was based on something that was irrelevant. I honsetly wasn't quite sure what all the fuss (directed at you) was about.

But people do tend to have strong feelings about such issues as the death penalty, abortion, gun control, etc., and whenever you bring them up you know someone's gonna get their undies in a twist.

[conuly]

Yeah, I see that. I've got her on aim right now, but I'm not sure if she's not there or deliberately ignoring (but refusing to block) me.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Meh. I didn't get a chance to mention this previously, but lack of crying is one of those things that can either help or hinder a defendent, and it's entirely subjective, but a jury does have some subjective decisions to make:

If male, the defendent should not cry-- it makes them appear weak and guilty. Obviously, that strategy backfired, so the new rule will be "don't cry unless a baby/infant/fetus died."

If female, the defendent should cry-- a LOT. In cases of infant abandonment (the typical "left newborn in a garbage can" kind of abandonment), black and latina defendents got longer sentences, which were sometimes as high as life if they didn't cry. The wording describing their reactions tends to be very, um, subtly racist (calling the defendent "cunning," rather than intelligent, or implying that she's not ruled by reason). White defendents, not surprisingly, got lighter sentences, down as far as suspended sentence plus parole if they wept openly during testimony.

It's unfortunate that it is this way, but I suppose it's good advice: if you're accused of a crime, cry frequently, whenever they mention the victim, whether you feel anything or not. Apparently, it's the only way.

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, that person is an idiot. I understand where you were coming from.

what makes everything worse...

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

... is how AOL/Time Warner distorted the whole crying thing to make it the causual factor in sentencing.

Is the forker an American who did well in civics? I am thinking they don't understand the difference between the vertict and penalty phases of the trial.

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

There is something basically wrong with her, isn't there? Beyond the defensiveness and the lack of reading comprehension skills, I mean.

Just so you know--you stated your position clearly and effectively. The communication breakdown here isn't on your part.

[conuly]

No, you hush. This is obviously a sensitive issue for her, I wasn't expecting that. People do tend to react strongly with personal issues. And... stuff... yeah. *groans*

[interactiveleaf.livejournal.com]

OK, maybe the problem is *just* the defensive. I mean, you clearly said "x" and she screamed "omg I can't believe you said 'y'" and you said "but I . . ." and she screamed again and other people said "but she . . ." and she screamed some more.

Sensitive issues or problems aside, the communication breakdown *still* wasn't on your part.

[conuly]

Yeah, probably, but being upset does tend to blind one to... um... stuff.

[spitefairy.livejournal.com]

I agree completely. I think people need to understand the guilty should get a balanced sentence.

[conuly]

See, that's what I don't get. I didn't even fill my entry with my normal rant about how the death penalty is wrongwrongwrong, so... *sighs*

[thren0dy.livejournal.com]

I didn't really see that you were defending him OR villifying him, just stating that it seemed his sentence was based on something that was irrelevant. I honsetly wasn't quite sure what all the fuss (directed at you) was about.

But people do tend to have strong feelings about such issues as the death penalty, abortion, gun control, etc., and whenever you bring them up you know someone's gonna get their undies in a twist.

[conuly]

Yeah, I see that. I've got her on aim right now, but I'm not sure if she's not there or deliberately ignoring (but refusing to block) me.

[mortaine.livejournal.com]

Meh. I didn't get a chance to mention this previously, but lack of crying is one of those things that can either help or hinder a defendent, and it's entirely subjective, but a jury does have some subjective decisions to make:

If male, the defendent should not cry-- it makes them appear weak and guilty. Obviously, that strategy backfired, so the new rule will be "don't cry unless a baby/infant/fetus died."

If female, the defendent should cry-- a LOT. In cases of infant abandonment (the typical "left newborn in a garbage can" kind of abandonment), black and latina defendents got longer sentences, which were sometimes as high as life if they didn't cry. The wording describing their reactions tends to be very, um, subtly racist (calling the defendent "cunning," rather than intelligent, or implying that she's not ruled by reason). White defendents, not surprisingly, got lighter sentences, down as far as suspended sentence plus parole if they wept openly during testimony.

It's unfortunate that it is this way, but I suppose it's good advice: if you're accused of a crime, cry frequently, whenever they mention the victim, whether you feel anything or not. Apparently, it's the only way.

[carakarena.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, that person is an idiot. I understand where you were coming from.

what makes everything worse...

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

... is how AOL/Time Warner distorted the whole crying thing to make it the causual factor in sentencing.

Is the forker an American who did well in civics? I am thinking they don't understand the difference between the vertict and penalty phases of the trial.