I agree with your point on execution of sentence, but I just had to comment on this bit...

I think it's rather unfair to declare system wide incompetence on the basis of one case, especially one that was actually tried incredibly well.

Believe it or not, as much as it was a failure on the part of the justice system, the OJ verdict was also a victory in a lot of ways for the US justice system. There was a LOT of circumstantial evidence in that case, and very little to physically link OJ directly to the crime - especially since he lived at the crime scene. Fortunately or unfortunately, the jury and judge remained impartial, and the correct decision was made in terms of how the judicial system says it must be made...his defense just outsmarted the system, quite frankly.

Also, although OJ didn't do time, keep in mind that the US judicial system also gave the families recourse against him financially via the civil suit. Perhaps not the ideal service of justice in most of our opinions, but service none the less.

Most of us probably would have liked to see OJ burned at the stake. But if the justice system worked like that, we would just reduce ourselves to a horde mentality.

so, did they find out who did it yet? if OJ didn't do it, then the civil case is bogus. and if OJ did do it, he should have been convicted. in either case the justice system is screwed.

The civil case was based on OJ's implication in the series of events, not whether he killed anyone.

And yes, this was still a good case to demonstrate some of the short-comings in the system.

One might wish for a system in which people try to do the right thing and that trials involve fairness and honesty. I once subscribed to this illusion and very nearly had my life destroyed for it.

The system is designed so that either side of a legal issue presents their case as biased in their favor as they possibly can where any statement is considered truth until it can be proven to be a lie. If there is enough evidence, the truth will hopefully be found.

I ultimately think OJ is paying a worse price than a death sentence. He has to live with hatred from anyone who recognizes his very famous face. He has to live with the fact that his once positive image is utterly destroyed and that he will never be forgiven.

I think you got that one backwards, terror. The legal system works on the premise that nothing is true until it can be proven (e.g. innocent until proven guilty, onus probandi, etc). That's why things like slander, libel, pergery, and contempt of court exist in western common law in the first place.

I know what people get taught in civics classes. If you want to think that I can't stop you, but when it's your butt in the hot seat, you'd do well to remember what I said. Let's just say it's the difference between theory and empirical data.

Ah, yes....because surely when your "butt is in the seat", your objectivity on the system is clearly in good standing.

Believe me, I have a lot more exposure to judicial systems than civics class. Apparently, on the other side of from you though...so perhaps that's where we differ.

My objectivity is in excellent standing. I teach calculus for a living. On average my ability to make a calculation without emotional input is far superior to the likes of a most cops and at least as good as an average lawyer.

Your attempt to completely frame my argument in terms of my emotional standing and then attempt to invalidate my argument by attacking me as a source suggests that you operate based on faith and that you hope others will agree with you since your person position is from the "good" side of the law--whatever nebulous position that may be which you choose to leave unrevealed (and no, I don't need to know your personal life if you wish to keep it to yourself).

Frankly I could care less if other readers in this thread find my argument persuasive. For those willing to set aside the agenda of "rah rah go team" patriots, the advice I gave make good sense and is based on real experience.

You NOW3P are under absolutely no obligation to take my advice, but you do have an obligation to not attack my character without cause.

I think you misunderstood my intention. I was only saying that if you've only found yourself with your "butt in the seat", and never done any work on the other side of the table, you're hardly in a position to make an objective and informed conclusion about any justice system as a whole. It most certainly was not an attack on you personally, so I question why you would get so defensive about it.

My opinion is also not based upon patriotism. As a matter of fact, I think you'll find me to be one of the first to question decisions made in the name of emotional responses to stimulus or some sort of unwavering loyalty to a cause. My opinion is based on nearly a decade of work within judicial systems around the world that strive on a daily basis to uphold the values I mentioned in the post prior to last - even if they don't always manage to do so.

Out of curiosity though....how exactly does being a math teacher set your objectivity above that of anybody else?

I'm rather curious to hear how one's chosen profession makes them better or worse than someone at something that is essentially a trait that someone either has or does not have. I, for example, am a business analyst with a specialization in Common Law judicial systems, and a quasi-programmer - but that doesn't make me think for a second that I'm more capable than anyone else at making objective decisions...at least not based on that

I don't do work on the other side of the table, but I have family members who do, so while my experience there is not first hand, it does extend beyond what I learned as a high school student.

Concerning your curiosity, people frequently make the mistake of thinking math is studied to facilitate people working more proficiently with numbers. While indeed this can be a welcome side effect, the real purpose is to evaluate and analyze data of any type.

In fact, in the course of my teaching I touch on both inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is based on making predictions based on patterns. Usually this application is seen more in science, but there is such a thing as strong induction which absolutely infallible so long as the axioms on which it is based are assumed correct. Deductive reasoning works exclusively on drawing conclusions based on axioms.

The trick of really understanding the value of reasoning though is understanding the validity of the axioms on which reasoning is based. I do not get to choose the axioms my students might hold as truth, but I can at least get them to consider the possibility that the conclusions they draw and consider to be truth is subject to interpretation based on the assumptions used.

In essence, objectivity is not just a trait I consider myself to hold but it is the object of my entire professional training. Objectivity isn't just something with which a person is born. It can be learned and I teach it.

I get the whole mathematical logic thing. I'm still not convinced that this makes you any better or worse than others at logical and objective decisions outside of your profession...aside from it being off-topic from the point of the discussion.

Every recruit in every police academy in the world is taught deductive logic and objective analysis of things they encounter in their day to day work (whether they use it or not is another discussion), and every lawyer in every (western) judicial system is taught the same. Most every profession, aside from politics, has some level of objectivity that is taught to students seeking that particular vocation, as well as new entrants into the field....that's just plain good business

So again, how does the fact that you do it with numbers/math set you above those who do it while trying a case, arresting a murderer, or deciding the merits and boundaries of the law? This seems like a rather pious and self-righteous opinion to me.

There is a good analogy between the hardness of minerals and the strength of logic within the sciences. Minerals range as follows:
1 Talc
2 Gypsum
3 Calcite
4 Fluorite
5 Apatite
6 Feldspar
7 Quartz
8 Topaz
9 Corundum
10 Diamond

This scale is very far from linear. That is to say the first 9 are definitely in order of increasing hardness, but all 9 are relatively close compared to the extreme outlier diamond.

Sciences are of a similar nature.
1. Sociology
2. Psychology
3. Biology
4. Chemistry
5. Physics
6. Mathematics

The first 5 definitely use principles of logic and reason, but they are cluttered by the interpretations and more importantly the misinterpretations imposed by the senses. Math is absolute and without contamination by perception.

You can call a diamond pious and self-righteous for being orders of magnitude harder than other minerals, but it doesn't change the nature of a diamond.

Your opinion of math (or me) doesn't change the fact that mathematics is the absolute distilled essence of logic.

You mistake my claim as thinking myself better than other people. My statements have nothing to do with my human qualities and you should disregard them. I'm just a guy who is not the best at anything. Mathematics though is hands down orders of magnitude more logical than criminology. If you think otherwise, I can not actually do a proof to show you are wrong as criminology doesn't even have axioms that I know of, but that fact by itself should make my point.

I don't have much of an opinion on math, or you for that matter. It is useful, and it certainly serves an important purpose in this world, but I don't believe it guarantees objectivity in those who practice it by any means. Personal biases come into play in any vocation, and regardless of training one's ability to be objective is (at least in my own opinion and experience) more inherent than learned. Studying a particular art or science may teach you tricks to use that inherent quality one way or another, but I don't believe that it makes you better at it than someone who has learned similar tricks in a different context.

I also never said you thought you were better than others, just better at something than others for a reason that I disagree with the legitimacy of.

Let me throw out an alternative point of view for you, which I'm guessing you haven't considered when contemplating the objectivity of folks in other professions outside of mathematics....

In mathematics, objectivity isn't complicated by emotion and personal biases. Numbers are numbers, and they either add up or they don't. This is obviously a grossly simplified example, but 2+2 will always equal 4, regardless of your feelings towards the steps to reaching that conclusion. So in that vein, you are correct that mathematics is a more objective discipline/science overall. My point in the matter is that I don't believe this in and of itself guarantees objectivity from any particular practitioner.

However, in law enforcement, or legal practice, or even working as a judge, not only does one have to remain logical and objective (or at least attempt to) for the sake of the system, one has to put aside that inherent emotional response to the subject matter, and do so in a system that is built upon subjective principles which are (attempted to be) enforced in an objective manner.

In my personal opinion, and nothing but, it is much more difficult for an officer, or a judge, or a lawyer to remain objective when suppressing those emotions than it is for a mathematician to remain objective about numbers and procedures that are inherently objective, but all of them strive for objectivity none the less.

I have known mathematicians who were bat fluff crazy, and some that were incredibly intelligent. The same goes for judges, lawyers, judicial experts, police officers, and criminal justice majors. With this in mind, I simply can't agree that mathematicians are naturally more objective than any other professional trade.

Perhaps you are personally more objective than others, and if so I congratulate you, and thank you for some enjoyable conversation on the matter. I just can't believe that every one of your colleagues can obtain a superior level of objectivity just because of their trade.

I'll definitely give you credit on the notion that mathematical expertise gives no guarantee on emotional control. Mathematics doesn't guarantee that outcomes reached by logic will necessarily produce productive ends.

In fact, math is only a tool. Lawyers are using it even if they don't know it, but they took those classes for a reason--it's brain conditioning. However, a person skilled in the science of math can make a real art of falsification that those less skilled will not catch. It can be a real engine for evil.

All that is required is for a person to take the flawed premises offered by another and draw step by step logical conclusions that suit their own needs. It actually even works well conversationally. A given statement my have a cause and effect. If...then....

A good methematician knows the hypothesis and conclusion can be reversed and negated to form the contrapositive with an equal truth value. If x then y has the exact same truth value as the statement if not y then not x.

That simple fact of logic can be deadly weapon in a court room.

You are probably correct to say not all teachers are like me. In fact, from one point of view I know I am quite different. Most teachers in general are micro managers. I suck at micromanagement. My grade book is a joke. I think my global perspective makes up for my former inadequacy though.

That was all I was getting at, really.

I don't think that a profession and an ability go hand in hand solely by their relationship to each other. So to say that because Mr. Johnson is an astronaut he is automatically calm in high pressure situations, or because Mr. Anderson is a professional sports player he is automatically aggressive is an inaccurate statement. That strikes me as type-casting and too much of a generalization to do much good for anyone in forming an objective opinion on something - especially if you're judging Mr. Anderson or Mr. Johnson on their ability to do their job based on the criteria for evaluating the opposite man's skills.


Mr. Johnson may have chosen to become an astronaut in part because of his ability to remain calm under pressure, just as Mr. Anderson may have chosen professional athletics due to an aggressive nature...but neither on is guaranteed solely by their choice of career path.

Indeed, a person well trained in objective thinking will not necessarily use it, but they have a much better opportunity than one who completely lacks the tool.

I suggest that math teachers predominantly choose to use the tools of their trade.

This nearly brings me to the cusp of another potential point of contention--the discussion of probability and possibility.

I fear that the common knee jerk response for most people when given two alternatives is that the probability between the two events is 50/50 automatically.

I certainly hope your are not applying this logic to math teachers and their willingness to use the tools of their training for their own lives. It is as silly as the person who would play powerball under the assumption that their chance to win millions of dollars was the same as their chance to lose.

No, of course not. Only that because someone has been taught how to buy a powerball ticket doesn't automatically mean that they will.

This is where I have a great respect for folks in the judicial system. You are probably correct that the probability of an emotional response in lieu of an objective response is 50/50 for the most part with some variation depending on mental capacity and training - but in the legal field, they have to suppress that initial response and use practical and objective pre-prescribed methodologies to obtain justice. Does it happen every single time? Of course not. No system is flawless, or immune from human error. But then again, as you said the same holds true in mathematics.

Take OJ, for example. Throughout the trial, the public sentiment was to hang him from his toes from the highest scaffold until he bled from his ears. Testimony was emotionally charged, racial lines were crossed, and the media tossed accusations around like a football at a tailgate party.

Even with all this though, the prosecution and defense maintained a high level of professionalism, and worked within the system to obtain a legitimate verdict - even if it wasn't the one that the public wanted to see, or even the one that many folks considered to be the "right" verdict. The point is, despite strong emotion from the public and media, the system remained objective, and handed out the only legitimate verdict it was able to given the evidence presented in the case.

Another example would be Casey Anthony in FL recently. The circumstantial evidence was absolutely overwhelming. Any subjective person would have punched her in the chops for what she did to her little girl. But the justice system looked at the facts objectively and said that despite the circumstantial evidence being what it was, there was not enough physical evidence to link her to the crime, and she therefore could not be convicted. To this day, she is still living in semi-protective custody because the general public cannot maintain the same level of objectivity that the legal system did.

Just because we don't agree with a decision doesn't necessarily mean that it was not made objectively.

Actually I have some Dale Carnegie training that suggests that people are 90% emotional and 10% rational. I believe it but it disgusts me. With my knowledge and a different morality I could be a be a millionaire. I love people more and money less.

The OJ trial was certainly interesting. It was a very hard fought battle. If I had been the person I was 15 years ago and in OJ's shoes, my mentality would have been to admit everything I had done and claim mitigating circumstances (I never have gotten angry enough to commit physical violence fyi). What would the legal system then do?

I'll tell you what. They would demonize me and punish me to the maximum possible extent.

This was my original point. The notion of cooperation with the system will only harm you. There is no incentive to be forthright.

That is my perspective. If you have a valid counterpoint NOW3P I'd be curious to know about it since my own attempt at admitting a failure of judgement cost me approximately 2 years of life--not in jail, but without the ability to get a stable job and a total drain on my finances while I paid for all the backlash from my events.

I am fully responsible for my stupidity. Any bad reputation I incur was from my one bad judgement. However I am now a fighter for those who would be dragged down by a system that overtly encourages honestly but then punishes it. I will bet my bottom dollar I'd have swung better deal as a liar. Furthermore, the deal I did swing required me to lie under oath to a statement that was false to all observers.

I would want folks to understand that.

I highly doubt they would demonize you, especially since courts do no case related PR whatsoever - as a matter of fact, they utterly discourage it.

What the courts would do is would sentence you within the legal bounds of sentencing guidelines set up independently from your particular case to ensure neutrality and objectivity. Most likely, you would receive a slightly more lenient sentence based on an admission of guilt vs. forcing the matter to trial, but this is not always the case as it also depends on the type of infraction of the law, previous precedent, and circumstance leading up to a plea of guilty.

Lying will certainly take you a long way in the legal system - just so long as you don't get caught - however this is true in just about any profession. Even in mathematics, I'm reminded of the GE employee who claimed to have invented something or other fantastic (the specifics of it escape me at the moment, I believe it was something along the lines of achievable cold fusion). He presented empirical data to support his claim, had the math to back it up, and had everyone convinced that he had succeeded where hundreds of others had failed. It was not until a keen eyed reporter began examining the mathematics he had used, and noticed that the numbers were completely fudged (the reporter noticed identical numbers in a separate invention that he was claiming to have made, I think) that he was ousted as a liar and a fraud.

I don't know your particular circumstances, so I wouldn't presume to speak to them, however I would also be incredibly hesitant to place a system wide label on a system that serves 300+ million people based on a single case that I don't know the full details of.

I do have some experience with the flip side of the judicial system in the US as well, and even though I didn't like it at the time, in retrospect the judgment was fair and impartial and even though it did follow me for several years, it was not the judicial system following me, it was the perception of my criminal record in the eyes of folks who were much less objective than the system that it was created through.


For the record, I am utterly against mandatory minimum sentencing. I honestly do believe that it can ruin lives in situations where it is utterly unnecessary (as it sounds may have been your case). Unfortunately, we have yet to figure out a more objective and neutral way of dispensing justice while instilling some capability for leniency with sentencing, and any other current system is just far too susceptible to personal bias from judges.

Overall, I don't actually think the legal system of the United States is set up badly. I'd just want people in general to understand that if they find themselves as a defendant that their best chance for a good final outcome is to do anything possible within the law to not get blamed for a crime. Perhaps I was just living in a town where the prosecution is out for blood any way they can get it, but offering them an admission of guilt in hopes that they will punish you less for being forthright is a fool's hope. If heaven forbid I ever find myself in that position again, I will not tell the police a thing until my lawyer tells me I should.

That's probably true. Rule #1 of being a defendant is to never accept a plea bargain you don't have signed and in writing.

Statistically, you may also be correct. In the most general sense, small jurisdictions have the highest amount of successful appeals based on a lack of neutrality by the prosecution, jury, or judge. They still fare better than most anywhere else in the world, but if you're going to run into it your chances are better in a small municipal court.

Whatever happened, I hope you've been able to move past your experience and get on with life. There's nothing worse than having a short moment in time haunt you for the rest of your life. I've seen a couple friends go that route, and it's not something I'd wish on anyone.

Thanks for your good wishes. The details of the whole matter are not really something I want to discuss here. I was embarrassingly foolish, and I really was on the knife edge of doing irreparable damage to my life. I am thankful for the family and friends who helped me get through that and I am also thankful for the relatively stable and prosperous life I now enjoy. One of the reasons I teach is so I can have an opportunity to help younger people avoid the sort of foolishness that caused me so much grief.