[The Graphite]

Originally Posted by Arthur Brain

Of course you'd still need appeals. When a person's life is at stake then guilt has to be established be it from criminal act to wilful perjury.

The guilt was already established. At the trial. Hello?

Do you have any idea of the miscarriage rate in the West alone? It ain't good TG.

I certainly do. And we have that because people have little accountability for perjury and criminal negligence for the officers of the court, ie the judge, prosecutor... If you knew you'd face the death penalty for it, would an 18-year-old high school girl falsely accuse a football player of rape? Highly unlikely!

And what do you mean by 'criminal negligence' in regards to officers of the court and the judge? Are you including the jury in this?

Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.

As far as I'm aware it's not the judge's role to convict the defendant but to keep order in the court and ensure a fair trial. Besides that he/she carries out sentencing based on the outcome of the jury verdict and in the cases you're describing they'd only have the option of delivering the death penalty anyway. So what of cases where the jury turn out to be wrong? Not through negligence but through sheer human error?

You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)

Criminal negligence already exists as a valid legal concept. If someone is found guilty and and we find out later he was innocent, through no reasonable fault of anyone involved, that is not a crime. If you believe a judge was criminally negligent in finding an innocent person to be guilty (and thus flogged or executed), then you may bring charges against that judge, before another judge. You must provide at least 2 or 3 credible examples of evidence to show the first judge was negligent in his administration of justice in the case, whether he blatantly ignored the evidence in the case or if he just slept through some of it (as Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometimes likes to do). And if you fail to bring sufficient evidence, that ends there. If you bring false evidence or falsely accuse the judge, then you face the penalty that he faced (which was the penalty given to the person you think he wrongly convicted). If a judge knows he will be held accountable in this way, he will take his job much more seriously than judges do right now. Judges are barely accountable at all, today, for the outcome of a trial, since the responsibility is usually pawned off onto 12 strangers off the street who then disappear back into society, probably never to be heard from again!

See how this works? The simplicity is beautiful. And it gives everyone an enormous motivation to NOT bring false evidence or falsely accuse others. Thus, the wrongful conviction rate would plummet.

[lightbringer]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Shall we read the full 2nd Amendment?





Even though it has been construed as an individual right (and I agree with said right, subject to reasonable regulation) I don't think the right is particularly clear from the actual text of the constitution.

This is a dead issue since the Supreme Court has handed down their decision on this, The 2nd. Amendment, and they don't seem to agree with you!

[The Barbarian]

Get the stuff out of your eyes. Loughner was a lefty nut job. He shot Giffords because she was a blue dog Democrat.

We know you want us to believe you. But without something to explain why a Meine Kampf-reading gun enthusiast would be a "lefty", it's not going to work.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
First glance makes it look like he's a right wing nutcase. Other than that, not very much.

Huh?

Left-wing nuts tend to be well, left wing. Guns are not their favorite thing.

Why would a right wing nutcase be reading Mein Kampf ...

That's like asking why ducks would be found around water.

and The Communist Manifesto?

I notice that almost every rightwing flapdoodle says he or she studied the Communist Manifesto.

The only thing that is making it look like he was a right wing nutcase is the nutcase sherrif.

And the evidence, of course. My guess, given the mess that he's left on the net, is that he's not really left or right, just angry and violent. He doesn't really fit in the tea party, either. The rhetoric was, if anything, a catalyst for what he already wanted to do.

Since it was widely reported that Giffords had been targeted (literally) by other anti-government people, it's not surprising if he took it seriously and acted on it.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by The Graphite

The guilt was already established. At the trial. Hello?

Er, 'hello' right back atcha. I'm talking about guilt being established, not a conviction where there's possibility of error.

I certainly do. And we have that because people have little accountability for perjury and criminal negligence for the officers of the court, ie the judge, prosecutor... If you knew you'd face the death penalty for it, would an 18-year-old high school girl falsely accuse a football player of rape? Highly unlikely!

We have it for a darn sight more than that TG. I agree that sterner penalties should be handed out to those who falsely accuse and commit perjury, but lately that seems to be how it's going. What safeguards would you have in place to prevent possible errors in conviction? How would you make the system failsafe where those who are rightfully accusing don't end up on the receiving end of the penalty you ascribe due to human failing? Without those in place you'd likely find that rape victims would often be scared to bring a prosecution in case they face the chair because of a miscarriage in court....

Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.

I agree it's hardly a satisfactory system and in part is responsible for how many wrongful convictions we've had up to this point. Relying on human judgement to ascertain the "facts" is inevitably doomed to failure at least a certain (considerable) percentage of the time.

You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)

But what you're describing really is no better. In fact it's worse. Even if the judge is the 'paragon of virtue' he's still just one human being and will be prone to errors of judgement no matter how concentrated he is regarding the evidence. At least with a jury there's room for discussion over the evidence where there's a higher chance of a decision being correct than solely the one....Under your 'system' we'd see the miscarriage rate go up! How is that "right"?! :squint:

Criminal negligence already exists as a valid legal concept. If someone is found guilty and and we find out later he was innocent, through no reasonable fault of anyone involved, that is not a crime. If you believe a judge was criminally negligent in finding an innocent person to be guilty (and thus flogged or executed), then you may bring charges against that judge, before another judge. You must provide at least 2 or 3 credible examples of evidence to show the first judge was negligent in his administration of justice in the case, whether he blatantly ignored the evidence in the case or if he just slept through some of it (as Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometimes likes to do). And if you fail to bring sufficient evidence, that ends there. If you bring false evidence or falsely accuse the judge, then you face the penalty that he faced (which was the penalty given to the person you think he wrongly convicted). If a judge knows he will be held accountable in this way, he will take his job much more seriously than judges do right now. Judges are barely accountable at all, today, for the outcome of a trial, since the responsibility is usually pawned off onto 12 strangers off the street who then disappear back into society, probably never to be heard from again!

And how do you go about establishing what counts as 'sufficient evidence' and how is this proven beyond even a shadow of doubt?

See how this works? The simplicity is beautiful. And it gives everyone an enormous motivation to NOT bring false evidence or falsely accuse others. Thus, the wrongful conviction rate would plummet.

No, nor is it beautiful either. It's highly naive and poorly thought out. As before, under your proposed system we'd have the rate go up!

[The Graphite]

Like so many people, Arthur, you are a lot smarter than God. Congratulations. Your ignorance is willful, and you are a fool. I hope you get it, someday.

[Arthur Brain]

Originally Posted by The Graphite

Like so many people, Arthur, you are a lot smarter than God. Congratulations. Your ignorance is willful, and you are a fool. I hope you get it, someday.

Riiiiiight. Got it. No answer on point. What a surprise. In case you'd forgotten, the bible also points out that God abhors the shedding of innocent blood and I would imagine that would apply to those wrongfully convicted and sentenced to a 'swift and painful execution'. Under your proposals this would undoubtedly happen else you'd either have the guts to accept this or explain just how it wouldn't.

Congratulations on your sheer hypocrisy and lame name calling.

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by The Graphite

Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.


You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)

We need informed juries sitting on trials.
Informed juries know their rights and responsibility to protect the public from overzealous prosecutors and from corrupt laws.

But, instead we have uninformed juries that think they must follow the instructions of the corrupt judges and lawyers who try to limit the jurors rights.

[This Charming Manc]

because for the law to be just it has to fair to all. If Jared Loughner gets m,ore thns you think he desreeves its because the univeraslity of trial by jury and appeal protects your rights in different cases.

Remove it for Jared Loughner and you remove ifr for everyone.

Look at it this way thet sate isnt paying for Loughner, they are paying to protect everyones rights.

Originally Posted by Inzl Kett

Well it is quite obvious Loughner is guilty. He held the gun and pulled the trigger. Fry him within 24 hours of conviction. Why waste tax payer dollars on housing him?

Our society has gone all soft on criminals. That is why we have more of them today than ever before. We should go back to the Biblical standard.

[This Charming Manc]

Mein Campf is a book of ther extereme right.. you seem to think its a book of the left?

I admit european facism of the 30's and 40's is a very different brand of thre right to extreme freedom anti government stance of the current american right, but its a right wing stance all the same.

Loughner was into extreme and unblanced politics, im guessing he was more left than right, but when you get to those extermes distinctions blur anyway.

Originally Posted by Knight

Really?
Loughner himself said his favorite books were Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" and Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf".

[This Charming Manc]

why dont you move to Saudi Arabia .....

I think you may love there criminal justiuve system.

May I call you Iman Graphite from this point onwards ?

Originally Posted by The Graphite

The guilt was already established. At the trial. Hello?


I certainly do. And we have that because people have little accountability for perjury and criminal negligence for the officers of the court, ie the judge, prosecutor... If you knew you'd face the death penalty for it, would an 18-year-old high school girl falsely accuse a football player of rape? Highly unlikely!


Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.


You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)

Criminal negligence already exists as a valid legal concept. If someone is found guilty and and we find out later he was innocent, through no reasonable fault of anyone involved, that is not a crime. If you believe a judge was criminally negligent in finding an innocent person to be guilty (and thus flogged or executed), then you may bring charges against that judge, before another judge. You must provide at least 2 or 3 credible examples of evidence to show the first judge was negligent in his administration of justice in the case, whether he blatantly ignored the evidence in the case or if he just slept through some of it (as Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometimes likes to do). And if you fail to bring sufficient evidence, that ends there. If you bring false evidence or falsely accuse the judge, then you face the penalty that he faced (which was the penalty given to the person you think he wrongly convicted). If a judge knows he will be held accountable in this way, he will take his job much more seriously than judges do right now. Judges are barely accountable at all, today, for the outcome of a trial, since the responsibility is usually pawned off onto 12 strangers off the street who then disappear back into society, probably never to be heard from again!

See how this works? The simplicity is beautiful. And it gives everyone an enormous motivation to NOT bring false evidence or falsely accuse others. Thus, the wrongful conviction rate would plummet.

[This Charming Manc]

In good humour I think.....

Originally Posted by Traditio

I'm not sure how to take this. :squint:

[Nydhogg]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

I agree with said right, subject to reasonable regulation

No-one has legitimate authority to regulate rights. Rights are inviolable.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by TomO

The things you outline may have some impact Trad....but I don't think they will have as much as you think. A nut is a nut no matter what his socio-economic position. Out of all the things you outline I can only see increased awareness of mental health issues and increased opportunites for treatment as having any real impact. Even then it will still be nominal. Nuts don't usually seek treatment because.....well, they're nuts.

Most crimes aren't committed by the insane. In this particular case...maybe. Was it solely his mental status that inclined him to commit the shooting? I don't know. But conservative right wingers are against tax-funded just about anything. Perhaps if there were public health care (of which psychological treatment were a part), many cases like this might be avoided. Granted, I'm not sure if this case would have been avoided, given that Arizona already has a law providing for the commitment of the insane given a credible witness...I saw this on the news...nonetheless, in the same news episode, it claimed that Arizona's funding for it had dropped rather substantially. Somewhere in the range of 60 million over 3 years.

Back to my original point, though. Most crimes aren't committed by the insane, are they?

[TomO]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

First glance makes it look like he's a right wing nutcase. Other than that, not very much.

As opposed to an Islamic nutcase.

Originally Posted by tetelestai

The only thing that is making it look like he was a right wing nutcase is the nutcase sherrif.

That's pretty much my summation of the thing. When this first happened I saw nothing which indicated this guy was any wing but I did hear alot of parroting of what a particular Sherriff had to say.....devoid of any actual facts.