The Barry Bonds' trial recently concluded and nobody seemed to win. BB wasn't totally vindicated, but after spending millions of tax-payer dollars, the prosecution only has a conviction on obstruction of justice -- which will likely result in probation. It seems the jury couldn't decide on the perjury counts. That could mean the feds might come back yet again for another trial, only to spend more of our money to prove a point.
My question is -- exactly what is that point? That he lied? Everybody has lied. Priests, pastors, rabbis, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, politicians (oh boy), business people, parents, kids, grandmas, your best friend -- you name it -- they've told some lies somewhere along the line. And so have you and I. Anyone that says they haven't just made themself a liar -- again. Does that make it right? No, but it happens. The trick is to distinguish between those that cause harm to others, and those that don't. The former might rightfully be taken up in a court of law, while the latter -- well -- something about people who live in glass houses.....
In the Bonds' case, even if he lied about taking steroids, I have yet to understand how that caused harm to others, besides ruffling the feathers of the feds. They ruffle ours enough, so who cares? The only damage I've seen done was to Bonds' wallet for his legal fees, and Greg Anderson, his former "trainer", who's spent months in jail because he won't talk. Something seems very perverse about a person, not currently accused of a crime, by the way, going to jail for being silent, while prosecutors and defense attorneys rack up millions of dollars and, in the end, pretty much accomplish nothing. How can that be right? Problem is -- there's no definitive set of rules.
Take the OJ case, for instance. Think what you will, and I'd probably agree, but the jury said he didn't commit murder. They supposedly heard all the evidence, and what we got to see and hear was filtered through the media. What we may think doesn't matter. The jury said "not guilty". It should have been over. But no, there was another trial, where he was found guilty of "wrongful death", and another jury said he owed 30-some million bucks to the families of the deceased. If the original jury said he didn't do it in the first place, then how can he be held accountable for "wrongful death"? I don't want to hear about the differences between "beyond reasonable doubt", and a "preponderance of the evidence". Either a defendant did it or didn't. Like it or not, the original jury said he didn't.
Speaking of which, what ever happened to "innocent"? If everyone's "innocent until proven guilty" going in, but they're not convicted, then why are they either "not guilty" or "acquitted" coming out? Shouldn't they go back to being "innocent"? Thing is, once one is accused, they are no longer "innocent", regardless of the verdict..They could have been 1000 miles away when the crime happened, and proved it, but they will never be innocent again. They now have a rap sheet. Think that's nuts? It gets worse.
Even after that verdict, OJ moved to Florida. So first he was not guilty, then he was guilty, after which he went to a place where the judgment didn't seem to apply anyway -- all in the same country. Now THAT'S nuts. Evidently, something came over him and he got caught up in some mischief in Las Vegas, so he's now in jail, probably for whatever the maximum sentence is, because for some reason, staying in Florida playing golf and living the high life wasn't good enough. That was REALLY nuts.
Somehow I don't think we've heard the last of Barry and OJ.
Roger Clemens is on deck. He should know how to handle this. They'll give him a couple "high hard ones" to rattle him. Then one down the middle to make him think they have control. After that, he'll see nothing but junk pitches. If he keeps his head, and is patient, chances are, after he coughs up a pile of money for his defense team, and the feds blow a few more million of our tax dollars, they'll issue him a "walk" too.
Again, what's the point?