Wednesday, June 15, 2005

don't blame california

Numerous reporters, commentators, bloggers and other spectators have poked fun at California over the recent jury decision in the Michael Jackson trial. The popular notion is that California juries are soft on celebrities Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson. I would point out that in general most celebrities get off the hook and a great number of celebrities are in California. This is a common logical fallacy of mixing up correlation and causation. In fact, California does convict celebrities. Winona Ryder and numerous rap artists can attest to that. One reason the celebrity acquittal rate is so high is that good lawyers know when and how to plea bargain. Thus, many California celebrities never see a jury at all; such as Robert Downey Jr and Christian Slater.

Other states also let celebrities off as well. Florida has let R Kelly off multiple times. Mike Tyson is sometimes given as an example of a non-California celebrity who was convicted but Tyson beat the charges far more often than getting nailed by them. Tyson is also too stupid and stubborn to bargain and his crimes are brazen, obvious, and horrible (violent rape) which makes them very hard to dodge. Another example sometimes given is Martha Stewart who was sentenced to 5 months. But, I would have you remember that the jury actually did acquit her of the most serious charge; leaving her with a mere slap on the wrist for stealing $30,000. Martha also messed with the wrong people, the SEC. Big money. And she still mostly got away with it. Jackson and OJ's victims were no-names left only to be avenged by an incompetent DA. At most one could say that California celebrity criminals are smarter about which crimes they commit and who they chose to represent them in court.

The idea that California jurors are stupider or more gullible than their counterparts in other states is ridiculous. Weak-minded fools are found everywhere in all 50 states. And in every state they stand a good chance of being selected for jury duty. Don't criticize Californians just because the stupid acquittals here are higher profile.

7 Comments:

At 8:09 PM, June 15, 2005, Blogger Matt said...

I'm not sure if this is intended in a spirit of levity or not. I hope that it is, and will just assume that is the case.

I am baffled as to why this is specifically addressed to me, as if I routinely make a habit of bashing Californians...which I don't. In case you weren't aware, I was born, raised and still live in California. I plan on living here in the Golden State as long as my body draws breath.

Also...if I'm not mistaken, it was Kathryn who mentioned Martha Stewart and Mike Tyson...not me.

All I have ever said on the matter of celebrity justice in California is two off-handed comments, one of which was intended solely as hyperbole, and the other was a casual reply to something Kathryn had said.

And I notice that, although she agreed with my statement, you did not include any mention of her in your lengthy diatribe.

Again, I am just going to assume that your post is intended as a bit of levity. Otherwise, you are attacking me for an opinion that I simply do not hold based on what amounts to little more than two "sound bites."

 
At 8:12 PM, June 15, 2005, Blogger Matt said...

As a follow up...if you really wanted to address this to me, why not just send me an e-mail, instead of posting it here for everybody to read?

Seems a little over the top.

 
At 1:10 AM, June 16, 2005, Blogger Ryan said...

No, I'm completely serious in my objection to your comments on California jurors. I addressed you because you are the one who brought up California jurors on my blog, not Kat.

The reason for my long objection not only that you have twice bashed Californians in the jury box, but did so a second time after already being corrected once. I don't understand how you can be surprised by my reaction. In fact, I suspect your comment was intended as provocation. I already criticized your negative view of California jurors on Shane's blog so you turn around and post similar a comment on my own blog. What do you expect? That I'll agree with you this time? And frankly, your comment on Shane's blog that "child mostestation is now legal in California" is in far too poor taste to be a casual, "off-handed" comment.

I addressed the issue publicly because you made your comments publicly, and I felt they needed to be corrected.

 
At 3:00 AM, June 16, 2005, Blogger Matt said...

Ryan, I no longer wish to discuss this here. Please check your e-mail.

 
At 8:29 AM, June 16, 2005, Blogger Kat said...

how 'bout them dodgers? *whistling*

 
At 9:36 AM, June 16, 2005, Blogger Matt said...

The Dodgers suck because they are from California.

 
At 4:55 PM, June 16, 2005, Blogger Kat said...

LOL

 

Post a Comment

<< Home