Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
- Original Message - From: Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, June 29, 2003 10:54 am Subject: Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it? Jeroen van Baardwijk wrote: I think it's rather odd that you have such mistrust of your government. After all, the people in your government are there because you *elected* them into those positions. Why do you vote for people you don't trust? Because otherwise, we wouldn't have *any* government. You can't trust *anybody* to always be a valuable public servant. Power corrupts, so it's possible for even the nicest, most heroic politician to become corrupt or power-hungry. We need safeguards in place to keep it from causing too much damage, when it happens. While I agree with you here (but find the US political model questionable on a number of counts), how on topic is all this? Is this list going to a slightly more toned down version of the original list? On a Brinnish topic, has anyone ever considered the role that Brin casts humanity in in his Uplift series? Especially his second series (mind you, i've only read brightness reef so far). I feel that he uses his space opera collection of races to represent his interpretation of different aspects of humanity, and the human race as the ideal. This seems to be especially true in Brightness Reef, where a genuinely cosmopolitan mix is proposed in a round about way as an alternative to the universe of the Precursors. Thoughts? Ibrahim Underwood Singapore NOTICE: This communication is meant only for the addressee(s) named above and may contain information which is confidential and/or legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee(s), or the agent responsible for receiving and delivering this communication to the named addressee(s), this communication has been sent to you in error. If so, kindly contact us immediately for retrieval purposes. Unauthorised dissemination,distribution, copying or reliance on this communication is prohibited and may attract criminal penalties. Thank you. [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030626.0014, Jan Coffey wrote: 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, A trained professional is far more likely to make an informed decision than the untrained Joe Average. Unlike Joe Average, the professional knows what he's talking about, so it's much safer to trust *him* with such power than to trust Joe Average with that power. That is rediculous. Someone in a position of power can abuse it. Average Joe isn't going to continue to recieve that power. Besides 1 person on a jurry trying to abuse the power is nothing. All 12 would have to go along with the same abuse of the power. That is 12 times less likely. The dicisions do not require a degree in law. It has to do with the fuzzy parts who do you believe, which version of the circomstances can be prooved? Does htat versio prove that the chrime was commited by this individual etc. There was another post on this wich did a much better job of explaining. we in the US do not trust our governemnt that much. You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say you don't trust the government (in this case, a member of the Judicial branch), but on the other hand you've stated that the three branches (Legislative, Executive and Judicial) keep each other in check and prevent each other from abusing their power. No, we do not trust -GOVERNMENTS- in general, power corupts. Don't mix consepts. 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. All this also applies to any member of a jury. A jury decision must be unanimous; if eleven members believe the defendant is guilty, and the twelth member is being paid to vote not guilty... well, you figure it out. Yes. but it is better that 10 guilty go free than 1 inocent be punished. 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? Public outcry about an innocent man being convicted is just as loud here as it is in the US. So, all you have to do is tally how many of those cases have been reported. How would you know when someone is convicted but is not inocent and their is no public outcry? = _ 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!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
At Stardate 20030622.2116, Jan Coffey wrote: No, it is those who are recognising the ICC who are saying that that particular flavor of international law should apply to them. Just becouse the US doesn't go along with something doesn't seggest that they believe that they should be exempt. Actually, they did say that. The US was willing to accept the ICC, but only if no US serviceman would ever have to stand trial there. And they made a very clear threat about what they would do if an American *would* be put on trial there. Strange offers are made when the other side of the table will not listen to reason. Excuse me? What the US said was: if you put an American on trial at the ICC, we will invade The Netherlands to free him. That's not an *offer*, that's a *threat*. And a threat against one of America's own *allies*, even. How can we trust someone who threatens his own friends? I wouldn't have to prove that US troops did *not* stick those civilians under the bridge. Thanks to the principle of innocent until proven guilty, the burden would be on me to prove that those troops *did* round up and kill those civilians. No proof, no conviction. But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their peers. Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works. Then you really need to study how things are done in other countries. I'll use The Netherlands as an example: we don't have trial by jury here, but people are still considered innocent until proven guilty. In every civilised country in the world, people are considered innocent until proven guilty -- and I bet that most of those countries don't have trial by jury. The difference is that over here we leave decisions about guilty/not-guilty to people who have actually been trained to do this (the judges), not to a small group of people who usually have never even seen the inside of a Law School, let alone graduated from one. Really, I don't understand why anyone would want to leave such decisions to a bunch of untrained amateurs. After all, when you're feeling sick, who would you turn to for the diagnosis: a trained professional (a physician) or a small group of peers who haven't had extensive medical training? Maybe arrogance is considered a good thing in the US, but if you come over here I recommend you leave the arrogance at home. It is not appreciated on this side of the Atlantic. You see, it would be unethical for an american to do something so unamerican. What's unethical about showing respect for the customs and traditions of people in other countries when you visit that country? To go back to my Thailand example: why would it be unethical for an American couple to refrain from walking hand in hand there, when they know that such behaviour is frowned upon there? When a Muslem friend invites you to a mosque, do you leave your shoes at the door (as you're supposed to), or do you walk into the mosque with your shoes on, stating that I'm no Muslem, so I don't have to respect and follow this custom? Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
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. 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? 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? Jeroen van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- 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!
