That so called trial is even more of a three ring spectacle than the O.J. trial. Wouldn't it have been simpler to just fire a couple missles into that hole?
207510
The trial is the way to go. I know it is a pain to watch this thing drag out. We've got to give the Iraqi people a chance to develop their democracy. This is a great exercise in controlling impulses to just kill someone with out a trial. The people of Iraq need this to know that if the worst among has been treated fairly then if they go to court they will also be treated fairly.\n\nIt sure would have been great to kill him in the short run, but in the long term success of Iraq as a free nation this is the way it has to happen.
91643
The evidence against OJ was overwhelming. There is no doubt in my mind that he is guilty of a double murder.
313686
I'm not sure that the batting order matters too terribly much. I just want to see them all prosecuted and punished. Each is as guilty as the other and none should be above the law. I just can't wait to get this started and finally have justice both done and seen to be done. It's been a log time coming.\n\nAnd a note to the moronic, right-wing "true believer" foaming at the mouth about pot-smoking and whatnot. Unlike you, I've never used drugs in my life. You would of course wish fervently that I was some pot-smoking, bead-wearing, Liberal hippie but I am none of those things. I am far better educated than you and, I might add, genetically superior in every way. You republican scum seem to think yourselves privileged and above all those with whom you disagree. But judging from your own illiterate rantings and the pitiful excuse for a human being that is your leader (Has he ever uttered even one coherent sentence?), I'd say my side holds the high ground in all departments. Enjoy the impeachment hearings. I know I shall! :)
495831
it may seem lax to you (and indeed it is so) but the reason behind it is most likely that the system is so overloaded that he just fell through the cracks.  i come across defendants everyday that the record keeping division of the prison system claims the defendants have paroled while the institutional division (and the parole division) claim the def is still in prison......and they actually are still in prison.
19249
He did it.\n\nThey had a tremendous amount of physical evidence, such as blood, that proved he did it. In addition, they had testimony from witnesses that made it pretty clear that he was acting suspiciously and  was doing things, like hiding bloody gloves, that proved his guilt. The defense lawyers were somehow able to convince the jury that the police and prosecution were racists and, therefore, they should let OJ go.\n\nHis motive was that he was jealous of another man being with his ex-wife.
557073
This question has been answered numerous times. There were many reasons why the coalition of over 30 nations invaded Iraq.\n\nThere were WMD, so you are either a fool or a liar.\n\nAs for the trial, this is just one of the many instances of Saddam's brutality. We have found 10's of 1000's of bodies in mass graves already.\n\nAll this info is on the web.
361103
Yeah... Wow! That was a hard and lucky shot.\nBut it would be cool if he actually planned it. He could never tell anyone anyways that way he can do it again in another fight.\n\nI think he was hurt though and just happend to aim right.
384663
I think it's because Saddam's trial would have looked better if he was tried by Iraqis (poetic justice, if you will).  The whole trial was basically a PR spin job (why do you think it was the Sunday before elections?)  Plus, they knew they'd get a straight conviction in an democratic Iraqi court (Read: Iraqis hand-picked by the US government with an already pre-disposed hatred of Saddam), while there could have been complications (hung juries, mistrials) in say, a UN court or whatever.
309126
At this point, I find it hard to believe the judge would toss the jury and start over.  \n\nThat being said, some defendants and defense attorneys feel that certain crimes are better judged by a judge rather than a jury as the judge is more like to follow the law rather than allow his emotions to rule over his logic.  An example is one accused of a sex crime (especially against a child).  Juries have often disregarded exculpatory evidence in such cases.
418359
first of all, its "trial" not "trail."  His lawyer should be able to cut a deal with the prosecutor where he pleads guilty to a lesser charge and a trial is not necessary.
488090
both and he had balls the size of watermelons. he was lucky to pull off what he did. our system needs more like him. its unfortunate that most police and government officials are above the law.
391312
OJ wantd to get rid oif his wife, not a bad comedian\nb
619153
I think it's called double jeopardy.....You can't be tried for the same thing twice.......
511755
Isn't it always a good idea to put self-admitted criminals on trial?\n\nDoes the US stand to gain anything by allowing someone to admit to breaking the law, and then not even put them on trial because they claim (without any legal support) that their position entitles them to break the law at will?\n\nIf Bush is put on trial (impeached = trial) and found not guilty, so be it. But not even putting him on trial sends the wrong message. It tells the world that the US doesn't care about the rule of law, and that we allow those in power to break the law at will.\n\nHardly a justification for the US claim to depose other dictators.
512498
That is so petty. The trial alone would cost like over 500 times as much at a measly pencil or haircomb.
568776
Prosecutors tend to do that because it makes the case easier to try. If they charged her for all 5, they would have to present all of the evidence of all 5 deaths and the jury would have to consider the questions of fact for all 5, which would make the trial and deliberations take just that much longer and provide the defense more places to provide reasonable doubt. They simply pick the cases that are easiest to prove. Charging her with only 3 would have no effect on her eventual punishment.
153818
It's impossible to know without knowing the crime or the defendant. Perhaps the defendant was similar to yourself. Prosecutors like to avoid having jurors who can identify with the defendants. Makes for acquittals and hung juries.