--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030625.2101, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > > >This is exactly why the US is staying out of the ICC. The regulations
> are
> > > >not sufficient to guarentee that they will not be abused.
> > >
> > > Can you guarantee that someone who is given a trial by jury in the US
> will
> > > be given a *fair* trial? Can you guarantee that when, say, a child
> molester
> > > is on trial, the jury will base its decision solely on facts and
> completely
> > > ignore their own emotions? When a soldier is given a trial by jury, can
> you
> > > guarantee that certain people in the military and/or government will
> *not*
> > > be pressuring some people into voting "not guilty"?
> >
> >The idea is that it is better for to criminals to go free than one inocent
>
> >man be convicted.
>
> That has nothing to do with the concept of trial by jury. The jury system
> doesn't have any more safeguards against an innocent man being convicted
> than our system has.
Your system has profesional judges who make decisions that is to much power,
we in the US do not trust our governemnt that much. And we wouldn't trust any
governement that much.
> >While this may not allways work in the US, it is still IMNSHAO :) much
> >less likely than in ~many~ other countries,
>
> Can you provide evidence for this? How is, say, a Dutch court more likely
> to convict an innocent man than a US trial-by-jury court?
Come on. it's obvious. -A- judge can be in on it, paid off, lean one way or
another due to political perswation, religion, personal beliefs. A Jury
picked and agreed to by the prosicution and defence as much less likelyhood
of being swayed do to anythign but the evidence, and -proof- of guilt beond a
reasonable doubt. Further more they have to all agree.
Besides, how would you support this with a study? What would you base the
inocence on? The point is not to have to proove inocence, but to proove
guilt. Any reasonable stuy which narrowed this to cause would have to proove
inocence.
> >and much better than that of the ICC.
>
> Hard to tell, given the very few cases it has had to handle so far. Can you
>
> point at ICC cases where innocent men have been convicted for war crimes?
The point is the way the system is set up, not the actual experience which
once again can not be reasonable tested without requiring proof of inocence.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
