OJ, Casey Anthony, Sandusky. OK to convict in the court of public opinion?

[ToeInTheWater]

First of all, I will say that the charges against Sandusky (the former assistance coach at Penn State) do seem to be based on a reasonable amount of evidence, at least so far. Yet, it’s also true that he has yet to face trial, face a jury of his peers, been officially convicted of anything. So far, he seems to want to fight the charges, not just make a plea deal. And I’d say that even if he’s not convicted of all charges, that what numerous people at Penn State did (or didn’t do) was still shameful, even if not technically illegal.

But, it does disturb me from a general sense of fairness, whether it’s okay that numerous media personalities (both in the sports and “general news” media) have made statements presuming that he is guilty of everything charged, and probably more. It reminds me of the Casey Anthony case where it seems the vast majority of people still assume she is a murderess, even though she was found not guilty. As for O.J. Simpson, I know opinions about him are very divided among racial lines, but it does seem that most people think he’s a murderer, too.

It also disturbs me that so many people have expressed a desire to take vigilante justice against Sandusky (or at least turn a blind eye if he goes to prison and suffers “justice” form fellow prisoners), as well as McQueary, the guy who allegedly saw a sexual assault with his own eyes and didn’t do anything to stop it. I even heard someone on the radio express disgust that McQueary was now being provided police protection, when he failed to protect others, that he didn’t deserve to be protected. I doubt this person really meant to say that McQueary really deserved death or injury from a vigilante, but I have a feeling many people wouldn’t shed any tears for him if that happened. (Even though, on a purely pragmatic level, it might be more difficult to convict Sandusky if McQueary is “taken out”.)

But then on the other hand, sometimes people seem to go to excessive lengths to defend people, such as people who defended Jaycee Peters’ kidnapper and insinuated that maybe she consented to what happened to her.

Is there any guidance provided by Catholic sources on how to handle such situations?

 

[bbentrup]

How many people have spent as much time praying as ranting on this issue? Not too many, I’d wager. I think I know where God would have us spend our efforts. Whether he is innocent or guilty, how does that affect us? There are still the victims to pray for, and also even the soul of the guilty. Ave Maria…

 

[jamanne]

As Catholics haven;t we walked this route before? watching every accusation against the clergy being taken as gospel , even when the accused had been dead for years it seemed that anyone could throw out an accusation and the media immediately sensationalised it to the point that a fair trial was impossible and even when proved false the damage was done any way by insinuation.Same thing here , very likely there is truth to some of it but just watch the fraudsters and lawyers come out of the woodwork .Hopefully the end result will be that ALL institutions no matter how proud and respectfull they think they are will be on high alert for the abuse of minors.More so in situations where very vulnerable kids are involved.Personally as a mother NO person was allowed to have my child sleep overnight except in my own mother’s home.No one was allowed to give them gifts except family without my approval and never from a school teacher or sports rep .We watched close friends go through the scenario and the hurt was awful for them to discover the lovely gifts and ($100table centre pieces) kindnesses were a ploy to use their little son .this stuff has been going on for years it will not stop but it can be diminished

 

[Lancer]

Yes…the Catechism (CCC) gives strong guidance…but in our reality-voyeur-vicarious culture…who needs to listen to this caution…after all if its legal for a mother and a doctor, et al, to kill an innocent and totally defenseless child–a human being–in the womb…whats the big deal about betting that you are right when you ruin someones name, reputation, and honor…no big deal…right!

Pax Christi

Catechism of the Catholic Church

III.** Offenses Against Truth**

**2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 He becomes guilty:

• of** rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; **
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;278
• of calumny who,** by remarks contrary to the truth**, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.**

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

2480 Every word or attitude is forbidden which by flattery, adulation, or complaisance encourages and confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. Adulation is a grave fault if it makes one an accomplice in another’s vices or grave sins. Neither the desire to be of service nor friendship justifies duplicitous speech. Adulation is a venial sin when it only seeks to be agreeable, to avoid evil, to meet a need, or to obtain legitimate advantages.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I always believed OJ was innocent, until some years after the trial, I began to have a different opinion.

As for Casey Anthony,
one of my co-workers, a Criminal Justice major and a very HARSH judge of those she thinks are guilty (she thinks we should chop off the hands of anyone who has ever committed theft, for example, and publicly cane other wrongdoers, etc, so this is NO liberal), she thinks that Casey Anthony is innocent and was “set up” by family members to take the fall for what she thinks was the accidental death of Caylee which the others in the family didn’t want to get blamed for. I don’t know if she is right or wrong, but this is a young woman who, as an 8 year old child, was violently RAPED (not merely fondled or molested, as bad as those things are), RAPED by a grown man, namely her dad’s best friend, and left hemorraging in the bathtub. Incidentally, the dad blamed HER for what his best friend did to her. The best friend fled to South America to avoid investigation and charges. He died on a certain date, and then, one year later, on the exact same date,
her dad was killed in a car wreck. Coincidence?
Anyway, as for all these scandalous stories, we just don’t know what is true,
and prosecutors flat-out lie just as much as defense attorneys sometimes, so there really is no way to know.
I also read that under Jewish Law, a person’s own confession to a crime is not admissible in court as evidence against him, either. Interesting. I had never heard that before.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have sat on several juries. On two felony cases we spent days listening to far more information than one could ever get from headlines. We then spent several days reviewing and discussing the evidence. With that experience I would never presume to judge guilt or innocence with a less intensive study of the matter, or second guess the jury which did do that study.

That said, with what I did see of the evidence in the OJ and Anthony cases, I think it reasonable for the jury to conclude that the prosecution did not present an air-tight case.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**That said, with what I did see of the evidence in the OJ and Anthony cases, I think it reasonable for the jury to conclude that the prosecution did not present an air-tight case. **

Interesting thoughts.
My views on the OJ case have changed. Yes, the prosecution “flubbed it” sometimes,
but the Defense of OJ was even MORE ridiculous. When I think of all the shenanigans that Johnny Cochran pulled in that trial, I am ashamed of myself for having so vehemently believed OJ’s claim of innocence. Cochran might as well have claimed that
Nicole and Ron were killed by UFO Entities that had been hovering over Nicole’s home.
And what really does it for me, in the OJ case, when I think about it,
is that the Jury deliberated for a mere TWO HOURS (on MONTHS of evidence), found him not guilty, and then got together and WROTE A BOOK about the agony of deliberating.
A mere two hours? Somethin’ don’t smell right. We aren’t talking about a nonviolent offense here, but a brutal, brutal, brutal double-murder.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Since the Law requires for their to be belief beyond a reasonable doubt, that means that a defendant who barely seems guilty will walk free. Its not a lie to say that a person acquitted due to lack of evidence probably did do the murder –in all circumstances. How you go about confronting them with your beliefs is a matter that I would be interested in hearing the Church discuss.