Re: My DUI Charges Dropped! A Great Argument
_ Prof. Jonez _
> The state could not prove its case, in fact, the state dropped the
> charges, after my arrest,
> for a DUI in Calif, while sitting in a parked car. I was sitting in a
> parked car off the side of
> a road, engine not running, an officer approached, my BAC was over
> the limit (.09), and
> he charged me. But....
> My lawyer made the compelling argument, to the DA before my first
> court appearance:
> "To convict my client for a DWI, you (the state) must prove beyond a
> reasonable doubt
> that my client was actually driving while intoxicated. There is no
> law that I'm aware of against being drunk in a car. Being drunk at
> the steering wheel is some evidence that my client was drinking and
> driving, but its hardly evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. What if
> he
> started drinking after he parked the car, and he was waiting to
> sober up? "
> Charges were dropped.
> Any Lawyers out there want to Comment, your comments would be
> appreciated.
You are very fortunate, as that same argument has failed in other States
and resulted in convictions.
a425couple
Citizen Bob
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Charges were dropped.
>> You are very fortunate, as that same argument has failed in other States
>> and resulted in convictions.
>I'll verify that Prof. Jonez is correct.
Not surprising. That's why there are over 10,000 totally innocent
people in prison today.
--
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
--Niels Bohr
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:22:43 -0700, "a425couple"
> <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Charges were dropped.
>
> >> You are very fortunate, as that same argument has failed in other States
> >> and resulted in convictions.
>
> >I'll verify that Prof. Jonez is correct.
>
> Not surprising. That's why there are over 10,000 totally innocent
> people in prison today.
There are? Cite?
Citizen Bob
>> Not surprising. That's why there are over 10,000 totally innocent
>> people in prison today.
>There are? Cite?
You will benefit more if you use Google to discover this for yourself.
CLUE: Use the keyphrase "innocent people in prison" (with the quotes).
Also try "10,000 innocent people in prison"
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:57:31 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not surprising. That's why there are over 10,000 totally innocent
> >> people in prison today.
>
> >There are? Cite?
>
> You will benefit more if you use Google to discover this for yourself.
>
> CLUE: Use the keyphrase "innocent people in prison" (with the quotes).
>
> Also try "10,000 innocent people in prison"
Wow, the World Socialist group says so! That's a persuasive,
reputable, impartial source. NOT.
Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
epidemic.
Citizen Bob
>Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
>people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
>truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
>person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
>epidemic.
You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
innocent people.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:50:01 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>> Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
>> people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
>> truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no
>> innocent person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its
>> hardly an epidemic.
>
> You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
> innocent people.
Maybe one day Larry, or someone in his family, becomes one of
those 10,000 innocent people wrongfully imprisioned
for decades at a time.
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:50:01 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
> >people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
> >truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
> >person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
> >epidemic.
>
> You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
> innocent people.
If I was one of them I would be saying something other than that this is
not an acceptable rate?
Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of it?
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:26:57 GMT, sp...@uce.gov
> (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:50:01 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
> >>people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
> >>truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
> >>person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
> >>epidemic.
> >
> >You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
> >innocent people.
>
> You think Larry would be saying .5% is acceptable, if he were
> one of them? Odd position to take.
I thought so too. But most rational thinkers believe his positions are
odd.
> Maybe I misunderstood his statement, but I took it to mean
> Larry thinks even .5% is unacceptable.
That is what I meant.
> Not the end of the world, but
> still unacceptable.
Unfortunately, we cannot have a perfect system. We can strive for
perfection, and improve it as much as possible, but there won't ever be
a judicial system that gets it right 100% of the time.
Citizen Bob
>> >Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
>> >people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
>> >truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
>> >person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
>> >epidemic.
>> You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
>> innocent people.
>If I was one of them I would be saying something other than that this is
>not an acceptable rate?
>Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of it?
I am disagreeing because what you say is unjust.
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny
individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
--Ayn Rand
Citizen Bob
>Unfortunately, we cannot have a perfect system. We can strive for
>perfection, and improve it as much as possible, but there won't ever be
>a judicial system that gets it right 100% of the time.
We have zero tolerance for many things. That's how cyclomates ended up
being banned.
Texas has zero tolerance for capital executions. No one has ever been
executed where it was later determined that he was innocent.
Falsely imprisoning any person who is truly innocent is unacceptable.
What part of "beyond all reasonable doubt" don't you understand?
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:37:08 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
> >> >people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
> >> >truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
> >> >person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
> >> >epidemic.
>
> >> You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
> >> innocent people.
>
> >If I was one of them I would be saying something other than that this is
> >not an acceptable rate?
>
> >Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of it?
>
> I am disagreeing because what you say is unjust.
It is unjust for me to believe that wrongful convictions are not
acceptable?
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>>>> >Even if true, the same Google results show there are over 2 million
>>>> >people currently in prison. That means more than 99.5% of them are
>>>> >truly guilty. I'm not saying this is an acceptable rate - no innocent
>>>> >person should be in jail. 99.5% isn't perfect, but its hardly an
>>>> >epidemic.
>>>> You would be singing a much different tune if you were one of those
>>>> innocent people.
>>>If I was one of them I would be saying something other than that this is
>>>not an acceptable rate?
>>>Are you disagreeing with me for the sake of it?
>>I am disagreeing because what you say is unjust.
> So you think .5% of those in prison being innocent is
>perfectly acceptable?
> I firmly believe it is far better to let 1000 guilty people go
>free than to convict even one innocent person. I must presume, from
>your comments, that you believe it is far better to send 1000 innocent
>people to prison than to have even one guilty person go free.
> I'm glad you don't make the rules.
How did I get on the other side of this issue? I never said anything
about false imprisonment being acceptable. I am the one arguing for
zero tolerance.
You guys need to pay closer attention to attributions.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>>Texas has zero tolerance for capital executions. No one has ever been
>>executed where it was later determined that he was innocent.
> Yet.
> This is the sole reason I'm against the death penalty. If
>someone who is innocent is put to death, there's no way to reverse it.
I am also opposed to capital execution for the same reason, despite
Texas record for never executing someone who later is shown to be
innocent.
>>Falsely imprisoning any person who is truly innocent is unacceptable.
> Yet earlier in the thread you took Larry to task for saying
>much the same thing. He stated that even .5% is unacceptable. Do
>pick a position and stick with it.
Learn how to follow attributions. I have argued for zero tolerance
from the very beginning.
>>What part of "beyond all reasonable doubt" don't you understand?
> Actually, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, not any reasonable
>doubt. A minor technicality, I know.
What's the difference? In either case, there can be no reasonable
doubt. That means beyond a/all/any reasonable doubt.
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:13:20 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> >Unfortunately, we cannot have a perfect system. We can strive for
> >perfection, and improve it as much as possible, but there won't ever be
> >a judicial system that gets it right 100% of the time.
>
> We have zero tolerance for many things. That's how cyclomates ended up
> being banned.
>
> Texas has zero tolerance for capital executions. No one has ever been
> executed where it was later determined that he was innocent.
>
> Falsely imprisoning any person who is truly innocent is unacceptable.
I never said otherwise. Do you have any reading comprehension skills?
> What part of "beyond all reasonable doubt" don't you understand?
Actually, all of it. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
You're also the one who misunderstood what I said. I'll accept your
forthcoming apology.
> You guys need to pay closer attention to attributions.
And you need to pay closer attention to word definitions.
Deadrat
server.houston.rr.com:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:13:20 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, we cannot have a perfect system. We can strive for
>>perfection, and improve it as much as possible, but there won't ever be
>>a judicial system that gets it right 100% of the time.
>
> We have zero tolerance for many things. That's how cyclomates ended up
> being banned.
>
> Texas has zero tolerance for capital executions. No one has ever been
> executed where it was later determined that he was innocent.
This is a strange definition of "zero tolerance." In fact, Texas has an
almost unlimited tolerance for capital executions, including executing the
mentally retarded and those convicted with the faulty forensic testimony of
state fire marshalls. The latter sent C. T. Willingham to his death in
2004. Fortunately, E. R. Willis, convicted on identical testimony, was
exonerated and pardoned.
>
> Falsely imprisoning any person who is truly innocent is unacceptable.
>
> What part of "beyond all reasonable doubt" don't you understand?
<snip>
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 12:17:01 GMT, sp...@uce.gov
> (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 03:13:20 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Unfortunately, we cannot have a perfect system. We can strive for
> >>perfection, and improve it as much as possible, but there won't ever be
> >>a judicial system that gets it right 100% of the time.
> >
> >We have zero tolerance for many things. That's how cyclomates ended up
> >being banned.
> >
> >Texas has zero tolerance for capital executions. No one has ever been
> >executed where it was later determined that he was innocent.
>
> Yet.
> This is the sole reason I'm against the death penalty. If
> someone who is innocent is put to death, there's no way to reverse it.
On the other hand, if you lock someone away for their entire life, only
to find out later that they were innocent, there's no way to reverse
that, either.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I firmly believe it is far better to let 1000 guilty people go
> free than to convict even one innocent person.
So taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion, you must be against
trials and prisons altogether, right? Since it's impossible to ever have
an infallible justice system, that means over time, no matter what you
do, no matter what system you use, there will always be people who have
the bad luck to be convicted despite their actual innocence. And since
you'd prefer to lock up no one than ever lock up an innocent man, you
must be an advocate of abolishing all systems of criminal justice and
just let people commit crime with impunity.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:15:51 -0400, BTR1701
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <u5bk23hc0url7u7no...@4ax.com>,
> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I firmly believe it is far better to let 1000 guilty people go
> >> free than to convict even one innocent person.
> >
> >So taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion, you must be against
> >trials and prisons altogether, right?
>
> Are you on drugs? If not, maybe you should start. There is
> no logical way to get to where you've gotten.
Actually, not only is there a way, it's the necessary conclusion from
your point of view.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:10:13 -0400, BTR1701
> It's happened before. Evidence proves the person was
> innocent, and the sentencing is reversed. They are free.
Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and died
in prison only to have been later exonerated.
> How would you propose to bring the executed back to life?
How do propose giving a dead man back the life he spent in prison?
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> When Larry stated that .5% is unacceptable, you stated he
>would be singing a different tune if he was one of those wrongfully
>convicted.
> The only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that you
>think it is acceptable.
That is not the correct conclusion.
I meant that even 0.5% is unacceptable.
> Maybe you just worded your reply poorly.
Maybe you did not understand what I said.
You are overlooking my opening statement, which if you had read it,
would have made my position clear from the outset.
Citizen Bob
>> Falsely imprisoning any person who is truly innocent is unacceptable.
>I never said otherwise.
You said that 0.5% is acceptable.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> It's happened before. Evidence proves the person was
>innocent, and the sentencing is reversed. They are free.
> If you mean there is no way to give them back the time they
>spent in prison, you are correct. However, they are released.
They also receive monetary compensation.
I would pass a law that required the entire court, judge, persecutor
and staff to go to prison for as long as the person they wrongfully.
convicted. Failing that, I advocate tyrannicide.
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
I said no such thing. You should work on your reading comprehension
skills.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:10:46 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's happened before. Evidence proves the person was
>> innocent, and the sentencing is reversed. They are free.
>> If you mean there is no way to give them back the time they
>> spent in prison, you are correct. However, they are released.
>
> They also receive monetary compensation.
No, they don't. In many states the law does not
allow for restitution for prosecutorial mistakes,
or severely limits the award. In fact most prosecutors
and judges not only have absolute immunity from
mistakes, they are also immune if the deliberately
act in bad faith.
>
> I would pass a law that required the entire court, judge, persecutor
> and staff to go to prison for as long as the person they wrongfully.
> convicted.
Sounds fair enough.
Citizen Bob
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> I would pass a law that required the entire court, judge, persecutor
>> and staff to go to prison for as long as the person they wrongfully.
>> convicted.
>Sounds fair enough.
I suspect the majority of false convictions are due to plea
bargaining.
There is no way I would ever plea bargain. I am not qualified to
pronounce my own guilt. I am innocent until proven guilty beyond all
reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. It is always possible that their
sense of justice is different from that of the courts.
The Jury has 3 duties to preform:
1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as
written, beyond all reasonable doubt
2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific
circumstances of this case, proper and just.
3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all
superior law, which includes common law per se.
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States supreme Court, 1789
"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice,1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be
decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941
Judging the justice of the charge as well as the legitimacy of the
statute is very much within the purview of the jury and it is for this
reason that we have a jury system. If it were just a matter of
deciding if the law were violated, then a judge would be all that
would be necessary.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:41:32 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>>> I would pass a law that required the entire court, judge, persecutor
>>> and staff to go to prison for as long as the person they wrongfully.
>>> convicted.
>
>> Sounds fair enough.
>
> I suspect the majority of false convictions are due to plea
> bargaining.
You mean Plea Extortion ...
Good point.
>
> There is no way I would ever plea bargain. I am not qualified to
> pronounce my own guilt. I am innocent until proven guilty beyond all
> reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. It is always possible that their
> sense of justice is different from that of the courts.
And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
your day in court?
>
> The Jury has 3 duties to preform:
>
> 1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as
> written, beyond all reasonable doubt
>
> 2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific
> circumstances of this case, proper and just.
Some/many Prosecutors would disagree on that, and few if any
Judges would allow such an instruction to the Jury.
>
> 3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all
> superior law, which includes common law per se.
Oh my! You've been reading those Freeman/Militia pamphlets again,
haven't you?
>
> "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
> controversy."
> John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States supreme Court, 1789
And you Shepardized this case from 1789 up to 2007 to see if
it still stands ?
>
> "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
> Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice,1796
Those good ole 18th centrury boys. What will they think of next?
>
> "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be
> decided."
> Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. Supreme Court, 1941
What say the current Supreme Beings ?
>
> Judging the justice of the charge as well as the legitimacy of the
> statute is very much within the purview of the jury and it is for this
> reason that we have a jury system. If it were just a matter of
> deciding if the law were violated, then a judge would be all that
> would be necessary.
Or a computer program.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:41:01 -0400, BTR1701
> So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
That's your premise, not mine.
> >> How would you propose to bring the executed back to life?
> >
> >How do propose giving a dead man back the life he spent in prison?
>
> You can't. Since the person most probably died of natural
> causes (some will have been murdered in prison, which opens a whole
> new set of problems), they would have died anyway.
But not after having spent their entire life behind bars.
> Sadly, there is no way to give anyone back the time they lost
> while in prison.
Yep. Just like there's no way to rectify a mistaken execution. Beginning
to see the parallels?
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:39:44 -0400, BTR1701
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <n43l239nnv5ic3fdr...@4ax.com>,
> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:15:51 -0400, BTR1701
> >> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <u5bk23hc0url7u7no...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I firmly believe it is far better to let 1000 guilty people go
> >> >> free than to convict even one innocent person.
> >> >
> >> >So taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion, you must be against
> >> >trials and prisons altogether, right?
> >>
> >> Are you on drugs? If not, maybe you should start. There is
> >> no logical way to get to where you've gotten.
> >
> >Actually, not only is there a way, it's the necessary conclusion from
> >your point of view.
>
> If that's true (it's not, but let's pretend), then the only
> conclusion we can reach from your posts is that everyone should be
> locked up in prison regardless of guilt or innocence.
Why don't you walk us through that thought-process step-by-step, chief?
I'm sure it'll be fascinating.
Brent P
> There is no way I would ever plea bargain. I am not qualified to
> pronounce my own guilt. I am innocent until proven guilty beyond all
> reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. It is always possible that their
> sense of justice is different from that of the courts.
You expect court to be fair. That expectation may very well be incorrect.
Many people charged know the deck is stacked. For instance, try fighting
a traffic ticket these days places like c(r)ook county IL.
> The Jury has 3 duties to preform:
> 1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as
> written, beyond all reasonable doubt
> 2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific
> circumstances of this case, proper and just.
>
> 3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all
> superior law, which includes common law per se.
All true. However the system has adapted and has in many cases been able
to get juries to ignore most of 1, and all of 2 and 3.
If juries did their job with number three, there would be no convictions
for having 'illegal' drugs, not to mention a whole host of other things
where the government has overstepped its bounds with regard to the bill
of rights or even a failure of a local government to follow the state law
regarding compliance to the MUTCD.
Larry
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> Citizen Bob wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:10:46 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> It's happened before. Evidence proves the person was
> >> innocent, and the sentencing is reversed. They are free.
> >> If you mean there is no way to give them back the time they
> >> spent in prison, you are correct. However, they are released.
> >
> > They also receive monetary compensation.
>
> No, they don't. In many states the law does not
> allow for restitution for prosecutorial mistakes,
> or severely limits the award.
What states have such a law? Many states have the exact opposite -
laws providing compensation for those found to have been wrongly
convicted.
> In fact most prosecutors
> and judges not only have absolute immunity from
> mistakes, they are also immune if the deliberately
> act in bad faith.
This is only personal immunity - the state itself is still liable.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:49 -0400, BTR1701
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <2r8n23da948c35v6t...@4ax.com>,
> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:39:44 -0400, BTR1701
> >> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <n43l239nnv5ic3fdr...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> As I understand it, on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:15:51 -0400, BTR1701
> >> >> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <u5bk23hc0url7u7no...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I firmly believe it is far better to let 1000 guilty people go
> >> >> >> free than to convict even one innocent person.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So taking your logic to its inevitable conclusion, you must be against
> >> >> >trials and prisons altogether, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you on drugs? If not, maybe you should start. There is
> >> >> no logical way to get to where you've gotten.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, not only is there a way, it's the necessary conclusion from
> >> >your point of view.
> >>
> >> If that's true (it's not, but let's pretend), then the only
> >> conclusion we can reach from your posts is that everyone should be
> >> locked up in prison regardless of guilt or innocence.
> >
> >Why don't you walk us through that thought-process step-by-step, chief?
> >I'm sure it'll be fascinating.
>
> Where as I've stated it would be far better to let 1000 guilty
> persons go free than to convict even one innocent, and you've show you
> disagree, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached, applying your
> logic, is that you think everyone should be locked up.
Well, no, that's not the only conclusion that can be reached. The fact
that it's the only conclusion *you* seem to be able to reach doesn't
mean the rest of us with functioning brains are similarly limited.
You still haven't walked me through the logical steps that get you from
disagreeing with "I'd rather let all the guilty go free than lock up one
innocent" to "all innocents should be imprisoned".
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0400, BTR1701
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and died
> >> >in prison only to have been later exonerated.
> >>
> >> So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
> >
> >That's your premise, not mine.
>
> Transference noted.
LOL! You're amusing if nothing else. Well done.
> >> Sadly, there is no way to give anyone back the time they lost
> >> while in prison.
> >
> >Yep. Just like there's no way to rectify a
> >mistaken execution. Beginning to see the parallels?
>
> So, by your logic, there should be no trials at all.
No, it's not "my logic". Pointing out the flaws in *your* faulty logic
does not make anything "my logic". It's merely an illustration of the
weakness in your argument.
Citizen Bob
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
>and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
>plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
>the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
>your day in court?
Absolutely.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> If you've been charged with a crime you committed, a plea
>bargain would probably be best. You'll have a conviction for, most
>likely, a lesser charge and you'll avoid the trial.
> If you are innocent of the charge, then taking a plea is a bad
>move.
I am innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt to a
unanimous jury. Therefore I would always reject all plea bargains.
>>The Jury has 3 duties to preform:
>>1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as
>>written, beyond all reasonable doubt
>>2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific
>>circumstances of this case, proper and just.
>>3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all
>>superior law, which includes common law per se.
> On point number one, no one will disagree. Your other two
>points are part of jury nullification. While there is no realistic
>way to stop it, this is not actually a part of the jury's duty, your
>cites not withstanding.
You are completely wrong. The legitimacy of any man-made law is based
on the consent of the governed. If the jury decides that the law is
not being applied justly, it can vote Not Guilty.
Read the Allen Charge.
+++
[...]
Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest
belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the
evidence...
You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to
establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have
your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
+++
Let's consider an example. It's 1950 in America and segregation is the
law of the land. Blacks are not permitted to sit in the front of a
bus. One day a black decides he does not consent to that law and sits
in the front of a bus. He is arrested and comes to trial. I am a
juror. I vote Not Guilty!
Why would I do that? The black is clearly "guilty" of violating the
law. According to the law his punishment is time in prison. I should
have voted Guilty, according to the law.
The assumption is that the law is legitimate. That assumption has been
brainwashed into us from the time we were babies. But, according to
common law tradition, that precept is not correct. Not all laws are
legitimate - some man-made laws are illegitimate because they do not
have the consent of the governed. And the individual is one of the
governed.
So how do you resolve this? Simple. You consult a jury, which is
composed of people from the community. They decide whether the
community consents to be governed by a particular man-made law. If
they decide, as I did in the case above, that a law prohibiting where
blacks can sit on a bus does not have my consent, then the law is
illegitimate and does not bind the defendant in this instance.
The jury is the only thing preventing an outright fascist
dictatorship.
Citizen Bob
(Brent P) wrote:
>You expect court to be fair. That expectation may very well be incorrect.
>Many people charged know the deck is stacked. For instance, try fighting
>a traffic ticket these days places like c(r)ook county IL.
You need to move away from that hellhole.
>> The Jury has 3 duties to preform:
>
>> 1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as
>> written, beyond all reasonable doubt
>
>> 2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific
>> circumstances of this case, proper and just.
>>
>> 3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all
>> superior law, which includes common law per se.
>
>All true. However the system has adapted and has in many cases been able
>to get juries to ignore most of 1, and all of 2 and 3.
>
>If juries did their job with number three, there would be no convictions
>for having 'illegal' drugs, not to mention a whole host of other things
>where the government has overstepped its bounds with regard to the bill
>of rights or even a failure of a local government to follow the state law
>regarding compliance to the MUTCD.
It's just a matter of time.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> Fortunately, there aren't any tyrants in the judicial system
>(certainly no one has been able to offer any evidence of such), so
>tyrannicide isn't a realistic option.
You are so wrong.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>>Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and died
>>in prison only to have been later exonerated.
> So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
We need to try people with an attitude of zero tolerance for
convicting innocent people. If anyone is proven to be innocent, then
we need to conduct full review board hearings into the causes of the
miscarriage, and sanction any wrong doers.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>since there is NO way to be absolutely certain only the guilty get convicted.
That's an incorrect statement.
Physicists can determine the existence of particles for which they
have no direct empirical evidence at the time. They use inference.
One of the most notable cases was the neutrino. It was first
postulated by Pauli based on conservation laws for beta decay. He
inferred its existence with absolute certainty even though it was 30
years later when one was observed experimentally.
Halfway along, Fermi concocted a theory of nuclear fission which
depended critically on the existence of the neutrino even though there
was no direct evidence that it existed. He built the first nuclear
reactor which he operated within 99.9% of critical mass - all based on
his theory. If the neutrino did not actually exist, he would have
likely vaporized the football stadium at Univ. of Chicago.
We have a sufficient standard of proof in "beyond all reasonable
doubt". If that standard were strictly enforced, there would be no
innocent people in prison. If the people who are supposed to enforce
that standard fail to uphold their responsibility, and someone is
wrongfully convicted, they should be sanctioned when it is later found
that the person was innocent.
We need to repeal "judicial sovereignty", which is responsible for the
evil that is perpetrated by the judicial system. With their own asses
on the line, maybe they will do their duty to protect innocent people
from judicial abuse.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:31:50 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>> And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
>> and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
>> plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
>> the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
>> your day in court?
>
> Absolutely.
Good luck.
Citizen Bob
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>> And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
>>> and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
>>> plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
>>> the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
>>> your day in court?
>> Absolutely.
>Good luck.
Luck is on my side. All it takes is one juror to do his/her duty.
Ever watch "12 Angry Men".
A man living in Houston came home from work and discovered that the
neighborhood punk had raped his daughter. He grabbed his shotgun, went
to the punk's house and killed him. he was indicted for murder but the
judge threw the case out. The neighborhood named a street after her -
Bacon St. It's still there.
A judge can convict you, but that is not true guilt. You can plead
guilty or no contest but that is not true guilt. Only a unanimous jury
can determine your true guilt. Until that time you are innocent.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:52:31 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>>>> And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
>>>> and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
>>>> plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
>>>> the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
>>>> your day in court?
>
>>> Absolutely.
>
>> Good luck.
>
> Luck is on my side. All it takes is one juror to do his/her duty.
One juror of 12 who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.
>
> Ever watch "12 Angry Men".
Ever hear of fiction?
>
> A man living in Houston came home from work and discovered that the
> neighborhood punk had raped his daughter. He grabbed his shotgun, went
> to the punk's house and killed him. he was indicted for murder but the
> judge threw the case out. The neighborhood named a street after her -
> Bacon St. It's still there.
So therefore he didn't really kill the rapist?
>
> A judge can convict you, but that is not true guilt.
LOL! Tell it to the 1000s in prison from Bench Trials.
> You can plead guilty or no contest but that is not true guilt.
ROTFLMAO !!
> Only a unanimous jury can determine your true guilt. Until that time you are
> innocent.
Well then, that settles it ...
Deadrat
news:462cd7cd....@news-server.houston.rr.com:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:52:31 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
>>>> And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
>>>> and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
>>>> plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
>>>> the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
>>>> your day in court?
>
>>> Absolutely.
>
>>Good luck.
>
> Luck is on my side. All it takes is one juror to do his/her duty.
>
> Ever watch "12 Angry Men".
>
> A man living in Houston came home from work and discovered that the
> neighborhood punk had raped his daughter. He grabbed his shotgun, went
> to the punk's house and killed him. he was indicted for murder but the
> judge threw the case out. The neighborhood named a street after her -
> Bacon St. It's still there.
Well, there is a Bacon St. in Houston, but I'm dubious. Could we have a
cite? I couldn't find anything via Google using the obvious key words,
but I didn't spend a lot of time on the search. This would have been a
homicide and a post facto private action against a criminal act. Judges
usually aren't cavalier about these things. Did the judge dismiss the
case or did he conduct a bench trial and find the man not guilty?
> A judge can convict you, but that is not true guilt.
What is "true guilt"? If you waive your right to a trial by jury and
take your chances with the judge, and he finds you guilty, then you're
guilty in the eyes of the law.
> You can plead guilty or no contest but that is not true guilt.
What is "true guilt"? If you plead nolo contendere, then you're guilty
in the eyes of the law. In a civil trial, no one may use your plea as
an admission of guilty.
> Only a unanimous jury can determine your true guilt. Until that time
> you are innocent.
I think you've been watching too many old movies.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:37:13 -0400, BTR1701
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <qksn23l58mrm8rqll...@4ax.com>,
> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0400, BTR1701
> >> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> >> >Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and died
> >> >> >in prison only to have been later exonerated.
> >> >>
> >> >> So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
> >> >
> >> >That's your premise, not mine.
> >>
> >> Transference noted.
> >
> >LOL! You're amusing if nothing else. Well done.
>
> Avoidance as well. You're going to hit every one on the list,
> aren't you?
Only in your fevered brain, chief.
> >> >> Sadly, there is no way to give anyone back the time they lost
> >> >> while in prison.
> >> >
> >> >Yep. Just like there's no way to rectify a
> >> >mistaken execution. Beginning to see the parallels?
> >>
> >> So, by your logic, there should be no trials at all.
> >
> >No, it's not "my logic". Pointing out the flaws in *your* faulty logic
> >does not make anything "my logic". It's merely an illustration of the
> >weakness in your argument.
>
> So believing it is wrong to imprison the innocent is in some
> way wrong? Please explain this view as it makes no sense to me.
Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that a person who takes
issue with your "1000 innocent men" comment as leading to an impossible
standard and hence would therefore result in the abolition of any system
of justice conceivable by man, must be de facto in favor of imprisoning
the innocent.
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:34:48 -0400, BTR1701
> Sure it is, using your logic.
No, it's not.
> >The fact
> >that it's the only conclusion *you* seem to be able to reach doesn't
> >mean the rest of us with functioning brains are similarly limited.
>
> Yet you reach the conclusion that my comment means no one
> should be imprisoned.
Because you outright stated that. You said you'd rather let all the
guilty go free than imprison one innocent person. Well, since humans
aren't perfect and therefore there can never be a perfect system, you
will always risk imprisoning the innocent. And since your preference is
to let the guilty walk rather than do that...
Put one and one together, chief, and what do you get?
> >You still haven't walked me through the logical steps that get you from
> >disagreeing with "I'd rather let all the guilty go free than lock up one
> >innocent" to "all innocents should be imprisoned".
>
> When has ANYONE stated they'd rather let all the guilty go
> free?
So it was just 1000? I gave you some credit and assumed that was a
metaphor. But you're saying it's really a hard-and-fast number? Okay...
but that makes even *less* sense.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:42:51 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> since there is NO way to be absolutely certain only the guilty get
>> convicted.
>
> That's an incorrect statement.
>
> Physicists can determine the existence of particles for which they
> have no direct empirical evidence at the time. They use inference.
But can they accurately measure any particle's velocity AND position
to a discrete accuracy ?
>
> One of the most notable cases was the neutrino. It was first
> postulated by Pauli based on conservation laws for beta decay. He
> inferred its existence with absolute certainty even though it was 30
> years later when one was observed experimentally.
>
> Halfway along, Fermi concocted a theory of nuclear fission which
> depended critically on the existence of the neutrino even though there
> was no direct evidence that it existed. He built the first nuclear
> reactor which he operated within 99.9% of critical mass - all based on
> his theory. If the neutrino did not actually exist, he would have
> likely vaporized the football stadium at Univ. of Chicago.
>
> We have a sufficient standard of proof in "beyond all reasonable
> doubt". If that standard were strictly enforced, there would be no
> innocent people in prison.
Not true, as the Jury is only presented with limited evidence/facts,
and if one limits the fact allowed to be presented,
then 12 humans could conclude that the earth is not only
the center of the universe, but that it is flat.
> If the people who are supposed to enforce
> that standard fail to uphold their responsibility, and someone is
> wrongfully convicted, they should be sanctioned when it is later found
> that the person was innocent.
>
> We need to repeal "judicial sovereignty", which is responsible for the
> evil that is perpetrated by the judicial system. With their own asses
> on the line, maybe they will do their duty to protect innocent people
> from judicial abuse.
Here here ...!
Might as well repeal Prosecutorial Immunity also, keep those
cocksuckers in line too ...
_ Prof. Jonez _
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:03:09 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and
>>> died in prison only to have been later exonerated.
>
>> So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
>
> We need to try people with an attitude of zero tolerance for
> convicting innocent people. If anyone is proven to be innocent, then
> we need to conduct full review board hearings into the causes of the
> miscarriage, and sanction any wrong doers.
And what of the massive gray area between "proven innocent" and
simply found "not guilty" ?
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:31:50 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
> >And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
> >and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
> >plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
> >the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
> >your day in court?
>
> Absolutely.
Why?
As a prosecutor, I can say I've seen people's lives ruined by this. And
it brings me no pleasure.
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:59:22 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If you've been charged with a crime you committed, a plea
> >bargain would probably be best. You'll have a conviction for, most
> >likely, a lesser charge and you'll avoid the trial.
> > If you are innocent of the charge, then taking a plea is a bad
> >move.
>
> I am innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt to a
> unanimous jury.
You do realize this is your own construct, and not a statement of the
law or legal theory, don't you?
> Therefore I would always reject all plea bargains.
>
> >>The Jury has 3 duties to preform:
>
> >>1) Determine if the defendant did or did not violate the law as
> >>written, beyond all reasonable doubt
>
> >>2) Determine if the application of the law is, in the specific
> >>circumstances of this case, proper and just.
>
> >>3) Determine if the statute involved is in compliance with all
> >>superior law, which includes common law per se.
>
> > On point number one, no one will disagree. Your other two
> >points are part of jury nullification. While there is no realistic
> >way to stop it, this is not actually a part of the jury's duty, your
> >cites not withstanding.
>
> You are completely wrong. The legitimacy of any man-made law is based
> on the consent of the governed. If the jury decides that the law is
> not being applied justly, it can vote Not Guilty.
>
> Read the Allen Charge.
The Allen charge has nothing at all to do with this.
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:03:09 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and died
> >>in prison only to have been later exonerated.
>
> > So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
>
> We need to try people with an attitude of zero tolerance for
> convicting innocent people. If anyone is proven to be innocent, then
> we need to conduct full review board hearings into the causes of the
> miscarriage, and sanction any wrong doers.
Do you think it's possible for someone to be convicted without any
intentional wrongdoing whatsoever?
Larry
sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> We have a sufficient standard of proof in "beyond all reasonable
> doubt". If that standard were strictly enforced, there would be no
> innocent people in prison.
This is far from true. There are people who are innocent, but only due
to very unreasonable, fluke-like convergences of factors in which they
appear guilty and there is no reasonable doubt about it, yet they are in
fact innocent.
> If the people who are supposed to enforce
> that standard fail to uphold their responsibility, and someone is
> wrongfully convicted, they should be sanctioned when it is later found
> that the person was innocent.
What about people who uphold that standard, yet the person is in fact
innocent?
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:30:47 GMT, sp...@uce.gov
> (Citizen Bob) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:59:22 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> If you've been charged with a crime you committed, a plea
> >>bargain would probably be best. You'll have a conviction for, most
> >>likely, a lesser charge and you'll avoid the trial.
> >> If you are innocent of the charge, then taking a plea is a bad
> >>move.
> >
> >I am innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt to a
> >unanimous jury. Therefore I would always reject all plea bargains.
>
> Everyone is presumed innocent until found guilty. This isn't
> the same as *being* innocent.
Reminds me of a phone call I had with a rookie defense lawyer who was
upset that I, as a prosecutor, didn't presume her client was not guilty.
I asked if she thought that rule applied to all people, she said yes. I
asked her how the police could ever arrest someone if they had to
presume they were innocent of the crime; the line fell silent.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We have a sufficient standard of proof in "beyond all reasonable
> >doubt". If that standard were strictly enforced, there would be no
> >innocent people in prison. If the people who are supposed to enforce
> >that standard fail to uphold their responsibility, and someone is
> >wrongfully convicted, they should be sanctioned when it is later found
> >that the person was innocent.
>
> perjury, identifies the defendant as the guilty party of a crime. The
> jury believes the witness and returns a verdict of guilty?
> Later, it is found that the person was in fact innocent. The
> burden of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt had been met.
> If it was a good faith error (the witness honestly believed
> the defendant was the one), NO misconduct occurred. If it was
> perjury, the witness will have to deal with the consequences of that.
He completely fails to acknowledge the possibility that someone can be
innocent in fact, yet the evidence can convince a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
Brent P
<larry mode>
Are you saying innocent people should plead guilty?
Are you saying innocent people don't have their lives ruined either
way?
</larry mode>
Larry
tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <x-4A3D3F.20...@news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote:
> > In article <462c94bd....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> > sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:31:50 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> >> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
> >> >and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
> >> >plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
> >> >the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
> >> >your day in court?
> >>
> >> Absolutely.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > As a prosecutor, I can say I've seen people's lives ruined by this. And
> > it brings me no pleasure.
>
> <larry mode>
>
> Are you saying innocent people should plead guilty?
No, I'm saying that if you're facing a harsh sentence, you are guilty,
and the prosecutor offers you a generous plea bargain for any one of a
number of reasons (not wanting to put the witnesses through a trial,
taking into account your otherwise-upstanding background, etc.), it's in
your best interest to take it.
> Are you saying innocent people don't have their lives ruined either
> way?
Of course they do. If they're innocent, and if those are their only
options. Which they aren't.
Brent P
<larry mode>
Are you saying that an innocent person should skip bail and make a run
for it?
</larry mode>
Larry
tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
You realize when you're in "Larry mode" the quality of your posts
increases exponentially, don't you?
Although, no, that's not what I'm saying. Everyone except a moron like
you should realize that.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> As I understand it, on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:48:43 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez
> The defendant may well be able to prove s/he is innocent, in which
> case the case will be dismissed. Barring that, not guilty is as close
> as one can get.
Exactly the point.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:01:53 -0500,
> tetraethylle...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >In article <x-4A3D3F.20...@news.west.earthlink.net>, Larry wrote:
> >> In article <462c94bd....@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
> >> sp...@uce.gov (Citizen Bob) wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 11:31:50 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
> >>> <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
> >>> >and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
> >>> >plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
> >>> >the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
> >>> >your day in court?
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> As a prosecutor, I can say I've seen people's lives ruined by this. And
> >> it brings me no pleasure.
> >
> ><larry mode>
> >
> >Are you saying innocent people should plead guilty?
>
> I would hope Larry would answer no to that.
Of course I would say no to that.
> >Are you saying innocent people don't have their lives ruined either
> >way?
> >
>
> If they plead guilty, there isn't much room for sympathy.
> They accepted the consequences that came with the plea.
> If they are found guilty at trial and are later found to be
> innocent, then there is much room for sympathy.
That's one of the rationales behind the rule that when you plead guilty,
you are severely limited as to your grounds to appeal.
Brent P
Both a troll and too stupid to realize the stupidity of his own 'style'
when used on him.
> Although, no, that's not what I'm saying. Everyone except a moron like
> you should realize that.
I knew it, just as you should have known everytime you responded with
strawman questions. But now that you've called yourself stupid, I'll
just put you with the other trolls and hopeless morons.
Fred G. Mackey
>>>
>>>>Are you saying innocent people don't have their lives ruined either
>>>>way?
>>>
>>>Of course they do. If they're innocent, and if those are their only
>>>options. Which they aren't.
>>
>><larry mode>
>>
>>Are you saying that an innocent person should skip bail and make a run
>>for it?
>>
>></larry mode>
>
>
> You realize when you're in "Larry mode" the quality of your posts
> increases exponentially, don't you?
>
> Although, no, that's not what I'm saying. Everyone except a moron like
> you should realize that.
Okay, so you're innocent and facing serious charges, but have a plea
bargain available.
As I see it, you're options are:
1: Fight the charges, which you might lose.
2: Accept the plea bargain, admitting guilt to something you're
innocent of.
3: Skip bail.
4: Commit suicide.
If you're suggesting there are other options, please do tell.
<larry mode>
You're a moron.
</larry mode>
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:17:38 -0400, BTR1701
> Yes, in fact, it is.
>
> >
> >> >The fact
> >> >that it's the only conclusion *you* seem to be able to reach doesn't
> >> >mean the rest of us with functioning brains are similarly limited.
> >>
> >> Yet you reach the conclusion that my comment means no one
> >> should be imprisoned.
> >
> >Because you outright stated that. You said you'd rather let all the
> >guilty go free than imprison one innocent person.
>
> I never said that. I did state "I firmly believe it is far
> better to let 1000 guilty people go free than to convict even one
> innocent person."
> Not even in the same area code as you dishonestly try to
> present.
>
> >Well, since humans
> >aren't perfect and therefore there can never be a perfect system, you
> >will always risk imprisoning the innocent. And since your preference is
> >to let the guilty walk rather than do that...
> >
> >Put one and one together, chief, and what do you get?
>
> That it is bad to imprison someone who is innocent.
> It's a shame that you clearly believe everyone should be
> imprisoned, even if they are innocent. I'm glad you don't make the
> rules.
> FWIW, you would have LOVED Communist Poland.
>
> >
> >> >You still haven't walked me through the logical steps that get you from
> >> >disagreeing with "I'd rather let all the guilty go free than lock up one
> >> >innocent" to "all innocents should be imprisoned".
> >>
> >> When has ANYONE stated they'd rather let all the guilty go
> >> free?
> >
> >So it was just 1000?
>
> When did I state that?
^
About 30 lines that way |
BTR1701
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I understand it, on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:13:28 -0400, BTR1701
> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <r49o231s5u68mhbu1...@4ax.com>,
> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:37:13 -0400, BTR1701
> >> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <qksn23l58mrm8rqll...@4ax.com>,
> >> > Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> As I understand it, on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:29:01 -0400, BTR1701
> >> >> <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Only if they're alive. Many people have served life sentences and
> >> >> >> >died
> >> >> >> >in prison only to have been later exonerated.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So we shouldn't try anyone then, huh?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's your premise, not mine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Transference noted.
> >> >
> >> >LOL! You're amusing if nothing else. Well done.
> >>
> >> Avoidance as well. You're going to hit every one on the list,
> >> aren't you?
> >
> >Only in your fevered brain, chief.
>
> That you can't accept this simple truth is your issue to
> address, not mine.
>
> >
> >> >> >> Sadly, there is no way to give anyone back the time they lost
> >> >> >> while in prison.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yep. Just like there's no way to rectify a
> >> >> >mistaken execution. Beginning to see the parallels?
> >> >>
> >> >> So, by your logic, there should be no trials at all.
> >> >
> >> >No, it's not "my logic". Pointing out the flaws in *your* faulty logic
> >> >does not make anything "my logic". It's merely an illustration of the
> >> >weakness in your argument.
> >>
> >> So believing it is wrong to imprison the innocent is in some
> >> way wrong? Please explain this view as it makes no sense to me.
> >
> >Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that a person who takes
> >issue with your "1000 innocent men" comment as leading to an impossible
> >standard and hence would therefore result in the abolition of any system
> >of justice conceivable by man, must be de facto in favor of imprisoning
> >the innocent.
>
> Who made a comment about 1000 innocent men?
Ah, so you're going to weasel out of answering yet again, huh? Figures.
Larry
As a prosecutor, I can tell you there are numerous other options. I'm
not your lawyer, so I'm not going to share them with you.
Fred G. Mackey
Well, I did neglect one very real possibility.
BRIBERY.
Thanks for letting us know how you operate.
Bo Raxo
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:52:31 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez _"
>
> <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >>> And when a Perverse Public Persecutor overcharges you
> >>> and offers you a few months in jail and probation for the guilty
> >>> plea, or face dozens of individual counts with 20-Life on
> >>> the line if you lose any one of them, would you still demand
> >>> your day in court?
> >> Absolutely.
>
> Luck is on my side. All it takes is one juror to do his/her duty.
>
> Ever watch "12 Angry Men".
>
I had no idea it was a documentary.
Ever heard of innocent people being convicted by a jury that made a
mistake?
> A man living in Houston came home from work and discovered that the
> neighborhood punk had raped his daughter. He grabbed his shotgun, went
> to the punk's house and killed him. he was indicted for murder but the
> judge threw the case out. The neighborhood named a street after her -
> Bacon St. It's still there.
Sounds like an urban legend, but it begs the question: does having a
street named after you mean you're a good person?
In Brookfield, Wisconsin there's a Capone Court, named after Al
Capone who once had a distillery there. Does that mean Capone was a
good guy, and not a thug and a killer?
>
> A judge can convict you, but that is not true guilt. You can plead
> guilty or no contest but that is not true guilt.
You are conflating legal terms with moral contexts: they are two
different things. Saying a legal procedure doesn't neccesarily equal
the same words used in a moral context, where their definitions are
different, isn't making an argument. They are different definitions
of the same words because they have different contexts. Duh. We all
know a jury said OJ wasn't guilty of the acts, while another said he
was responsible. In a legal context those are reconcilable, because
they have different burdens of proof. In a moral sense, they aren't.
All it shows is that verdicts aren't perfect reflections of reality:
again, duh.
> Only a unanimous jury
> can determine your true guilt. Until that time you are innocent.
>
Depends on when and where: jury verdicts don't always have to be
unanimous in some state courts. Go read the constitution: it
guarantees you a trial by jury, among other things, but it doesn't
mandate a unanimous verdict.
Bo Raxo
GK
relation to what the original ideals where when it was founded.
People in the USA are convicted of murder based on no evidence and only
the flimsiest circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence can often
be found on anyone, including the most innocent people.
Prosecutors routinely disregard evidence that would show someone is
innocent because they do not care about the truth.
If they have a name, any name including yours, then you are guilty
unless you can prove innocence.
GK
Citizen Bob
>Well, there is a Bacon St. in Houston, but I'm dubious.
Based on what?
>Could we have a cite?
Doug Briggs, "A Matter of Personal Protection: The Weapons Laws of
Texas", 2nd ed., 1992. ISBN 1-881287-01-7.
>I couldn't find anything via Google using the obvious key words,
>but I didn't spend a lot of time on the search.
So what?
>This would have been a homicide
DUH.
>and a post facto private action against a criminal act.
DUH.
>Judges usually aren't cavalier about these things.
Judge Mary Bacon is not the typical judge.
>Did the judge dismiss the
>case or did he conduct a bench trial and find the man not guilty?
I said it was dismissed.
>> A judge can convict you, but that is not true guilt.
>What is "true guilt"? If you waive your right to a trial by jury and
>take your chances with the judge, and he finds you guilty, then you're
>guilty in the eyes of the law.
That is not necessarily true guilt. What if you are innocent?
--
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future."
--Niels Bohr
Citizen Bob
wrote:
>does having a
>street named after you mean you're a good person?
>In Brookfield, Wisconsin there's a Capone Court, named after Al
>Capone who once had a distillery there. Does that mean Capone was a
>good guy, and not a thug and a killer?
Does the Lincoln Memorial mean Lincoln was not an evil person?
>You are conflating legal terms with moral contexts
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed."
--Thomas Jefferson, "Declaration of Independence"
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> As I've stated, there is no realistic way to stop jury
>nullification. However, your examples fail to show that jury
>nullification is a part of the jury's obligation.
Allen Charge:
"Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest
belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the
evidence..."
"You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to
establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have
your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty."
> These are given. No one would argue these points.
You are arguing against those points.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> The police don't have to worry about guilt or innocence. They
>only need to meet the burden of probable cause, which is much lower.
>While it would be difficult to rationalize, they could believe the
>person is innocent, yet have to make the arrest because there is
>probable cause.
They can make an arrest on the basis of "reasonable suspicion". That
does not mean that they must believe the person is guilty.
Citizen Bob
wrote:
> What if a witness, either through a good faith error or
>perjury, identifies the defendant as the guilty party of a crime. The
>jury believes the witness and returns a verdict of guilty?
> Later, it is found that the person was in fact innocent. The
>burden of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt had been met.
That is an assumption on your part. It is the responsibility of the
defense to raise reasonable doubt. It is the jury's responsibility to
vote Not Guilty if there is reasonable doubt.
If a "witness" claims that a person committed a crime, and the fact of
the matter is that the witness is wrong, then it is the responsibility
of the defense to expose that fact to the jury.
We are on the threshold of a breakthrough in determining the
crediblility of witnesses. There is a device that can tell if a person
has been in a particular situation before. They show him pictures
which include the scenes in question, and if he has been there, they
are able to measure a brain response. It works both ways - it can be
used to show that a person was not at a place.
A good defense attorney can do the equivalent of that and get the
witness to show his hand in the matter. The jury acts as the machine
that detects when the witness is not being factual. For example, if
the witness were not in the place to see the crime, then that should
be straightforward to expose to the jury. Etc.
If I knew I were innocent, I sure as hell would not just sit there and
let a "witness" convict me without doing everything thru my lawyer to
show the jury that there is reasonable doubt.
Citizen Bob
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>Not true, as the Jury is only presented with limited evidence/facts,
>and if one limits the fact allowed to be presented,
>then 12 humans could conclude that the earth is not only
>the center of the universe, but that it is flat.
How can the facts be limited?
>> We need to repeal "judicial sovereignty", which is responsible for the
>> evil that is perpetrated by the judicial system. With their own asses
>> on the line, maybe they will do their duty to protect innocent people
>> from judicial abuse.
>Here here ...!
>Might as well repeal Prosecutorial Immunity also, keep those
>cocksuckers in line too ...
Damn Straight!
"A politician's neck should always have a noose around it.
It keeps him upright."
-Robert Heinlein
Judges and Persecutors are politicians.
Citizen Bob
<the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>And what of the massive gray area between "proven innocent" and
>simply found "not guilty" ?
"Proven innocent"?
Where did that come from?