I don't get it. **spoilers**
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Find Me Guilty
ValerinAmberz — 17 years ago(March 02, 2009 10:05 AM)
Sorry maybe I'm a little dumb, but what exactly were the charges? what was this whole trial all about? These guys were openly gangsters, they even spoke openly about the crimes they had committed while being questioned. No one really hid the fact that they were gangsters. So why were they on trial? And when they were NOT GUILTY in the end what were they NOT GUILTY OF?
Sorry I thought it was a bit confusing. Can someone explain this to me?
Furthermore I laughed every time that nicky whatever said "knock that love-crap out will ya!"
well since you're naked you might as well f___ a friend of mine. Paul come in here! -
frogca — 16 years ago(May 18, 2009 07:04 PM)
We have a law similar to RICO up here in Canada, but it is difficult to make these charges stick, to prove that it's a criminal organization, not just that some crimes were committed.
There were many charges and this is based on a real case, so you could look it up and see exactly what they were.
SPOILER
But the main thing is that juries, unlike judges, do not have to explain the reasoning of their decision. In the movie, the jury returned their decision in just 14 hours, whereas the lawyers expected the decision would take 4 days or a week at minimum. It sounds to me like they did not fully discuss and consider all the things they should have, or they made up their minds before retiring to the jury room, which they are absolutely not supposed to do. Maybe there was some evidence that caused the prosecution's case on all 76 charges to be damaged, but that doesn't sound very likely to me.
Jury trials are ridiculous. I don't know why we still have them. No one wants to sit on juries, and for any sentencing a judge will have to independently make findings of fact anyway, because, again, the jury is not required to explain their logic or what facts they found. -
proteus122 — 11 years ago(July 20, 2014 12:12 PM)
Juries are very important. Personally, if I'm wrongly accused I'd rather face a jury of my peers than a judge. In The States juries were thought to be so important that the founding fathers included the right to trail by jury in the constitution. In a way it's like separation of church and state. The jury disconnects the cold, hard justice system from the defendant. It gives a person the maximum chance possible to defend himself.
Like the cliche says: I'd rather a 1000 guilty people go free than one innocent be convicted. -
doug7347 — 15 years ago(September 23, 2010 07:11 PM)
They were accused of conspiring with each other, but the government didn't have a single credible witness, so the jury probably quite rightly found them not guilty.
Just because "everyone knows" a person is guilty of something, doesn't mean the government doesn't have to prove it in court. They do.