I never liked Roger Clemens. I always found him arrogant, standoffish and, don't forget he used to pitch for the Red Sox. However, what he may (or may not have done) in terms of using HGH (which by the way was neither illegal or a banned substance at the time), or whether he or a man who claimed to inject him (and even creepier, still, said he saved the needles in beer cans) doesn't really make much difference to me, or really shouldn't to anyone. And, if lying to Congress was such a horrendous offense, how about all the politicians much of the time, members of Cabinet, "spun" answers, bankers and financial people, etc? At very best, this appears to be a case of selective prosecution.
It is estimated that the government (yes, that means all of us taxpayers) spent a minimum of $3 million on this prosecution, and that Clemens spent at least an equal amount defending himself. Even a casual observer should have realized that this case was based on the testimony of a rather questionable key witness. After the first trial was dismissed (without prejudice) because of prosecution error, and what might that have cost, it was decided to retry this case. And, this time, all 12 juror found Clemens "not guilty" on all charges.
I never liked or trusted John Edwards. There was just something that always seemed slimy and less than trustworthy to me about him, but I guess that can be said about many people in politics. Obviously, his behavior was contemptable. However, was there a prosecutable crime? The jury found him "not guilty" on one charge and could not arrive at a verdict on the others. Did this case justify the expense and resources?
When they wanted a scapegoat for some of the financial innapropriate behavior, who was singled out? Martha Stewart, and not for her financial misconduct, but rather for her words. Although Stewart is another unlikeable individual, I doubt that too many people believe she is the biggest threat to our financial system. And, now that's she's out, she's back in business, so wasn't this an expensive lesson and discipline to someone that wasn't well liked.
How about all the cases where the key witness is someone who's been given a deal for his testimony? Obviously, when it comes to prosecutions, there is often not an even playing field.
Even the second O.J. case was prosecuted not because of that crime, but rather because of public sentiment that he needed to be punished for his alleged previous offense (of which he was not convicted). Most legal experts state that the punishment/ sentence for that crime was disproportionate with that specific offense? It appeared that this trial was the legal equivalent of when a referee calls a questionable "touch foul" to make up for a poor earlier decision/ call!
No wonder there is such a backlog in our courts. Shouldn't trials be reserved for crimes where there is substantial proof, or serious threats to society? When we speak of government waste, don't forget the court system. Remember that being a jerk is not always a criminal offense! These are just a sampling of questionable decisions and actions taken. Let's speak out so that we have a true justice system that makes decisions based on evidence and facts, and not personalities, etc.
The frivolous lawsuits are wasting our tax dollars, holding up legitimate court cases, etc. I knew of a man years ago who fell in a store due to negligence - and his lawyer said that he would probably never see the money, but not to worry - his grandchildren would. Really?
Great point. This was a pointless waste of time and a financial waste as well. I find it interesting that if the government was so upset about steroids in baseball why not ban smoking? I've never seen anyone smoke a whole pack of cigarettes and hit the treadmill. However HGH use and exercise go hand in hand. I guess the government's worried that people might find the fountain of youth and live off of social security for a few centuries. I guess they'd rather you smoke your brains out and die and prevent insolvency of SS...LOL I know, it's sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. Sorry. :)
Now, do you really believe he didn't juice?
Martha Stewart, likewise...the prosecutors took their shot and hit the jackpot in that case. My opinion, a gross miscarriage of justice. For any of us, meaning me, to harbor such negative sentiments toward our federal government is not a healthy or desirable situation. It makes walking down the middle of the road...almost impossible sometimes. The other dismaying aspects of all of this, and I think the blog post is a really good one, is (1) the proclivity of so many people to want to sit in judgement of others, and, (2) the setting of rigid and unrealistics expectations for our "heroes" to live up to, as though they, unlike ourselves, are somehow more then human.
It should be noted that a plaintiff's injuries are not addressed until liability is established. In fact most trials are bifurcated, meaning a jury decides liability before hearing any evidence as to injuries and damages. In the McDonalds case discovery proceedings revealed that McDonalds coffee was served about 30 degrees higher than other merchants and that theyhad notice through numerous prior complaints regarding the coffee's temperature. Also, prior to trial the plaintiff had made a settlement demand of $20,000. McDonald's rejected the demand, went to trial and got burned.