r/UnpopularFacts

A very frequently made complaint when it comes to any government here in the USA, is that it rarely/never implements policies that actually work for the people.

The completely ignored reality as to why that is, is because most people don't actually want to accept the costs of having that policy. Americans always expect the costs of a policy they support, to be pushed off to someone else.

This also applies to policies to fix problems, that don't necessarily involve spending money. This is the case regarding housing. Our housing crisis will only be resolved via building more housing; and most people will acknowledge this. But support to actually do it drops off a cliff when that housing is built near them.

This is the real reason why surface-level policies like "make housing more affordable" or "make childcare more affordable", very often fail to ever get implemented. It costs money; and oftentimes a lot of it. And most people just don't want to make that sacrifice.

In 2023, U.S. residential electricity bills increased by 2% each month compared with 2022. That growth rate was slower than inflation, which was 4.1% in 2023. Over the past decade, residential electricity prices have increased more slowly than overall inflation.
In nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), the average monthly electricity bill for residential customers in the United States in 2023 totaled $138, an increase from $135 in 2022. This 2% increase was in line with the 2% average annual increase over the past decade. The 2023 data are preliminarily based on a sample of utilities, although the 2013 through 2022 data are final data based on more extensive utility data we collected. Among individual states, average monthly residential electricity bills ranged from a low of $87 in Utah to a high of $213 in Hawaii.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61903

The prosecution of the OJ Simpson case fabricated evidence, and made a large number of mistakes in the trail that led the all black Jury of the OJ Simpson trail to acquit based on these familiar bungles, which have put people that look like them behind bars for crimes they did not commit before.

Only one Juror claimed it was revenge. Carrie Bess. The rest have come out criticizing the LAPD’s faulty, inconsistent arguments.

“Juror Yolanda Crawford, however, denied Bess's claim [That it was revenge], and said that the verdict was due to the prosecution's mistakes, such as presenting Fuhrman as a witness and having Simpson don the gloves, while also voicing her displeasure at what she perceived as Cochran's attempts to sway the jury with racial hints such as wearing an African-style tie.“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_the_verdict_in_the_O._J._Simpson_criminal_trial

One Juror said they believe it was more than one person, due to the “Way” Nicole and Goldman were killed. She was confused as of how OJ could have left the bloody scene with no blood on his shoes. How Goldman could have defensive wounds and was clearly kicked to death but OJ had no bruises on his legs or arms.

That same juror said the blood evidence had an additive in it that was only found in test tubes, which the defense brought up. Implying the blood evidence was planted

**Was there a moment in particular during the trial that really swayed your decision towards reasonable doubt? **

Yeah, when they started talking about the blood evidence. There was, like, a milliliter of blood they couldn’t account for. And they found blood on the back fence of Nicole’s condo, and that particular blood also had the additive in there. That additive is only found in [a test tube of blood], so why would the blood sample on that back fence contain that additive unless somebody took the blood from the test tube and placed it there?

Do you think O.J. was framed?

I don’t know if he was necessarily framed. I think O.J. may know something about what happened, but I just don’t think he did it. I think it was more than one person, just because of the way she was killed. I don’t know how he could have just left that bloody scene — because it was bloody — and got back into his Bronco and not have it filled with blood. And then go back home and go in the front door, up the stairs to his bedroom … That carpet was snow white in his house. He should have blood all over him or bruises because Ron Goldman was definitely fighting for his life. He had defensive cuts on his shoes and on his hands.

O.J. only had that little cut on his finger. If [Goldman] was kicking to death, you would think that the killer would have gotten some bruises on his body. They showed us photos of O.J. with just his underwear just two days after, and he had no bruises or anything on his body.

https://www.vulture.com/2016/04/oj-juror-people-v-oj-simpson-right-and-wrong.html

Every single juror believed that the evidence was doctored or planted

https://www.baltimoresun.com/1995/10/10/hispanic-juror-speaks-out-on-simpson-verdict-la-man-reiterates-that-acquittal-was-not-influenced-by-race/

A particular Juror felt the actions of the LAPD were highly suspicious, and was swayed when Furhmun plead the fifth when specifically asked if he planted or manufactured evidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

This was no mistake on the LAPD’s part. They were fully aware that an all white jury would be biased against OJ, as they have been proven to again and again with black defendants. And a jury outside of LA would also be biased against OJ.

They intentionally sought a home case with black jurors because they were so confident in their argument they wanted to convince people who were by default suspicious of their conduct, they wanted a black suspect convicted by a black jury, symbolically, to represent his undeniable guilt. They did not want the slightest possibility of racism motivating the verdict, and this would've been a badge of pride. "He was so guilty, even the blacks couldn't deny it"

This would require an utterly foolproof argument without a hint of bad faith that they failed to provide. Most of all, failed to exclude the bad faith and fake evidence.

Why would the investigators have planted evidence? Didn't they have a strong case against Simpson without it?

I think they did have a very strong, winnable case without planting evidence. First of all, they weren't sure that the glove would not be excluded, and if the glove were excluded, then they needed the sock. And they didn't know at the time they tampered with the sock that the glove would be admissible. They also wanted a slam-dunk case. They wanted the strongest possible case.

I think one reason why the prosecution decided to bring the case in Los Angeles County, where they knew they would get a [pre]dominantly black jury, was they thought they were going to win, and they would rather win and convict a prominent black man by black jurors than by white jurors. They did not want a repeat of Simi Valley and Rodney King and white/black, black/white. They wanted a black jury to convict a prominent black man. And they made a terrible blunder by allowing eight black women to serve on the jury.

I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second. ...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/interviews/dershowitz.html