The law says one is viewed as innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter what the situation. At least it's supposed to work that way.

Yes, somebody could go to jail for involuntary manslauther, but it would have to be proved that the defendant did something that was endagering the life of the other one. For example, in your particular case, if there were security measures in place that the defendant did not follow and ended up accidentaly pushing the victim off the ledge. But if all security measures were in place, if there nothing was done "wrong" by the defendant, then he probably would not be found guilty.

Yea, that does sound right. I just read up an article on Encarta explaining this. I didn't think about whether there was recklessness involved. Example is someone running through a redlight and get's hit by a car, it's actually a lesser charge of misdemeanor manslaughter. (I feel that spell-check icon creeping ) My original point was that it's involuntary manslaughter no matter which way you look at it.

OJ wasn''t the exception (unfortunately)

As for Martha Stewart, she has ticked off too much of the population for the past few years for people to presume her innocent.

It''s strange how it works. Cops deliberately target celebrities because by making an example they boost their profile (often resulting in a budget boost), lots of (usually good) publicity, etc. But when they jury comes in, they want the celebrity to keep being a celebrity and so they are predisposed to rule "not-guilty" unless guilt is proven past the farthest shadow of a doubt and then some.

[edit] The only reliable exception to the above rule is when someone has really ticked off the public, such has how the CEOs have. The CEO scandels have greatly increased the vulnerability of any rich person or celebrity that goes to trial for anything related to a corporation, but has little impact outside of that. [/edit]
[Message Edited]

I don't know about that. I find that people are usually much more severe towards celebrities than towards every day people. If your next door neighbour gets caught shoplifting, you'd just shrug "So?", but if a celebrity does it it's a scandal. It's also true for things such as drinking, smoking, taking drugs. Britney Spears smokes and drinks?? OMG! What's the world come to?!!

Paxx, in my opinion, the scandal is the punishment, which is why celebs get lesser or no sentence. Wynona Rider will forever be looked down upon for shoplifting, just as OJ will always have the scar on his name. That's worse than going to jail.

I think that would there is no simple black and white answer to such a question. In the even of something as you mentioned--it's a tough one. Sure it was an accident--but that guy is DEAD.

Perfect example: And this IS a true story. A few years ago, a fellow co-worker was in the center lane, about to make a left, to turn into the company parking lot. Being in a hury, she decides to make that left at a pretty darn good speed might I add--well she plows into this other woman, in a suburbun who was moving at a decent speed as well. Well, she plowed into the woman in the white suburban pretty damn hard...the impact ejected the driver of the suburban from her seat--through the back seats--and out the back window--out onto the street!!! That women is dead. (I'm leaving a lot of details, so I can condense the story)

Now should my aquaintance/co-worker go to jail?? HELL YEAH! There are two children in this world without a mommy because she didn't want to be two minutes late!

I know that sounds calouse of me--but bottom line is a life was taken--and it could have been prevented by stopping, in the center lane, waiting as the person was supposed to have.
Seeing that body and the wreck that morniing--FOREVER keeps me from driving fast (as I used very badly speed).

Whether she went to jail or not, I never found out, as a few weeks later I moved to Denver. So I don't know what happened.

I think that there should be severe punishments for that woman, but not jail since it was an accident.

Good night I'll pick it back up in the morning.

In the past seven years, the emergency medical community stopped labeling car crashes as accidents. Their reasoning being an accident is a random act that could in no way be avoided. Using this reasoning, a good lawyer could possibly sway a jury into believing the defendant in question was negligent in his actions, not utilizing safety measures put into place by the company he worked for, as well as OSHA regulations for safety in the workplace. Therefore, it WAS his fault the victim died and he could possibly go to jail, though probably with a more lenient sentence of say 6 months and some form of instruction in safety in the workplace.
Using this reasoning, many DUI convictions have been enforced, after all, if the person wasn't driving while intoxicated, he would never have put the victim at risk. Again, a good lawyer could point out , the victim should have some responsibility, just by having been in the place of the incident to begin with. all these scenes could have been avoided in some way. Point being, get a good lawyer if ever you are in the position of standing before a judge or jury.

KG, that last case you mentioned was definitely injust. It was purely the rollerblader's fault. Oh well, yet another miscarriage of justice.

no drinking.  no speeding.  they said that he should have been able to react faster.  It was not fair, but the winner of a case is usually determined by how good the lawyer is.  At least he ended up with the minimun punishment.