Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030701.1734, Jan Coffey wrote: You don't think power corupts, and so you are not concerned as much about the system. That's not what I said. I know that power corrupts, but over here we consider people in power to be innocent until proven guilty, instead of guilty until proven innocent. Our founding fathers left europe at a time when it was mostly monarchies, and they set up this kind of government becouse of the very corupt power they experienced at the time. Modern-day democratic government (in both Europe and the US) is very different from the feudal way in which Europe was run in the 15th century. I can imagine that corruption was much more commonplace then than it is now; back then there were no checks and balances, and the population was mostly uneducated and illiterate (and way to busy trying to stay alive, to worry about politics). OUr feeling on Europe is that we dig more, so we find more. Of all those millions of politicians that have served your country over the centuries, how many of them have actually been proven to be corrupt or have been proven to have otherwise abused their powers? So far, most of our elected officials haven't betrayed that trust. Our politicians know that any abuse of power is likely to be discovered sooner or later, and that this discovery will put a quick end to their political career. Few are willing to risk their position of influence, their reputation and their quite pleasant paychecks. If you were a little more catious and dug deeper, and trusted a bit less, we think you would find that you are missing a lot of abuse. Maybe, maybe not. We're keeping a pretty close eye on our politicians, I don't think many of them will be able to abuse their power without anyone noticing it. Nevertheless, we're not going to say that many of our politicians are corrupt; we still adhere to the principle of innocent until proven guilty. This doesn't sound any different really. Maybe it's just the way we -talk- about it, not how we actualy -think- about it.?? This happens al the time even in the US. FREX I grew up in a culture where emotions were more expressed than that in the general population, but also prety muched ignored. Now, with NAs this was generaly the norm, with NBAs this was often strange but axcepted. With FOB's though I can be regaurded as somewhat of a ...Klingon. Russians and Chinese for instence tend to hold their emotions back. Well, not really. It's more that their -volume is turned down-. I am not saying that they are not as loud (although there may be a component of that) I am saying that they express their emotions much much more subtely. So when they view a more intense display of emotions they are put off by it. Further more they get upset becouse they use body language much more, and consider many comunications to be best kept as body language, considering these things spoken out loud to be uncooth. Since we tend to speak our mind and request comunication on such topics, this can be uncomfortable for them. Of course comeing from a culture that is use to the volume being turned up, and one which typicaly ignores non-verbals until they are very loud (even for us) I tipicaly don't even notice such subtle body language. Even if I did, it would be too.soft for me to interpret. Now if you would adress the modle that I have previously described you will see that Americans have choosen the modle of melting pot multiculturalism to deal with just such issues. We are very individualistic. Instead of boiling all the cultures down to the least common denominator, we take a greatest common denominator approach. Consider the differences in such cultures living in and among eachother. Can you think of a better way of dealing with these differnces than the AMCM? If we used the EMCM we would all soon have the least common denominator culture. Instead we have the greatest common denominator. Exactly the interpritation that you had of the term melting pot would in fact occure. We don't want that, we prefer to allow each culture to retain some individuality whithout the need for people from simmilar cultures to be geographicaly and socialy enclosed. Granted some groups do prefer more...clumping but this is much more common in San Francisco, LA, and New York. I'm not saying that clumping doesn't occure in the other parts, but I am saying that this clumping is melting away at a much faster rate. Subsequently in such places the NBAs tipicaly shun thowse that clump. This might be interpreted as racesism, but it is not. It is mearly a distast for such exclusivism. Before I stray to far from the point, what was it? That our volume concerning athority and the watching of that athority to make sure the power is not abused may ~sound~ louder than that in Europe, but from what you describe, it doesn't sound like what we
Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] At Stardate 20030629.0253, Steve Sloan 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. If you don't trust a candidate, why don't you get together with other people who also don't trust that candidate, and bring forth an other candidate from your own ranks, someone you do trust? According to www.census.gov, at this very moment the US has a population of 291,368,325 people; surely you aren't saying that your country is made up of over 291 million untrustworthy people? It's not that there is a specific leader that we don't trust - it's a general suspicion of authority of *any* kind. The general feeling is that with any power comes the *potential* for abuse of that power, so much of our system is designed in an attempt to prevent that abuse or at least make it harder and/or reduce the potential to do so. Hence, the Bill of Rights, the 3 branches of government, the jury system, the distinction betwen the states' and the federal government's rights, etc. JvB you don't seem to get the difference between what Dr. Brin speaks on below, and parinoia. You also don't seem to get how one can distrust athority, but have trust in individuals who happen to be in athority. You also don't seem to get the difference between trusting systems, and not trusting individuals in those systems. Could you please elaborate on these so that I may understand your perception? I know you to be quite an intelegent person and I wish to know your thoughts on this topic. -that is why we were having this discussion after all-. That, and I would like to make sure that you understand mine. Right now, it does not seem that you do becouse your arguments do not appear to be logicaly consistent, as I am sure mine do not either. And bringing us somewhat back on-list-topic: Have you read Dr. Brin's excellent speech he gave last year at the Libertarian Party National Convention: http://kithrup.com/brin/libertarianarticle1.html Hmmm, yes, back on topic. = _ 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:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Martin Malmkvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if I got Ibrahim's message right, but I think that there is no real idea in continuing this discussion. The original purpose was to highlight some probable causes why there is so much anti-americanism out there, and I think those reasons have been thoroughly clarified (and the Americans on the list have also had the opportunity to defend the ways of their country). So I'm officially off this discussion - meant in no offensive way, it's been good learning. Why do so many europeans want to leave the discussion just when it get's down to the details? You know? You get over the usual yelling and screeming, down to the point where you are just starting to be able to form some kind of consistent model, and the europeans loose intrest. Could it be that they don't like what is -in- the details? Could it be that they know what you will dind there? Or are they so unmoveable from their opinions that they don't want to focus when it get's to the point that those opinons are chalanged? I was able to form (what I believe to be) a consistent model of the tolerance in europe and the US, and to describe the interaction of components in that model. I also beleive that this model shows the superior effectiveness of tolerance in America. But I have heard no agreement or disagreement. By your silence can I assume that you agree? = _ 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:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030627.1753, Jan Coffey wrote: Does the American public actually have any idea about how we perceive your extreme distrust of government and anything that reeks of government involvement? No please explain. I already explained that in the sentence following the above sentence. Well, I didn'tget it so you need to be more explicit. We distrust governement becouse nearly all of us were, or have ancestors who were burned by one governement or another (even the USA). So I would not say that our distrust is unwarented. 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? It's not the ~people~ we don't trust, it's the ~position~. We wouldn't trust anyone with the power, not even ourselves...which is exactly the case since our governemnt is for, by and of us. We fear all governments, yours, ours, all government. We value freedom more than you do obviously. However, I do not beleive that you speak for all netherlanders. Likewise, I don't believe you speak for all Americans. FREX, you have stated earlier that Americans are supertolerant, but I know of a mailing list whose archive is full of examples of Americans being anything but tolerant towards other Americans and to non-Americans. I thought the deal was they leave you alone and you leave them alone? But you know, I don't think they are as intolerant as you think they are. Certain individuals can be very intolerant. -yes on that list-, but it is a matter of averages and means. Your perception is much less than the average perception (in the US), and some of the individuals in question may be slightly less tolerant than the mean. Remember, our notion of tolerance is different. Likewise, you claim that Americans have a great distrust of government, but I know some Americans who unquestioningly support the current Bush regime. Support and trust are two seperate things. 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! = _ 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:Justice in the US vs Europe
--- Martin Malmkvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Jan Just a humble note to your dialogue about justice in our most esteemed nations. By the way: Congratulations on creating the most successful headline on this list yet :) I changed mine for the sake of variation. The law-stuff: 1. - It is a fact that no innocent person has recieved capital punishment in Denmark (or the Netherlands I believe to be able to guarantee) for at least the last 100 years. - However as the below source suggests, the same cannot be said about the US: ... Opponents of capital punishment also argue that the finality of capital punishment does not allow for the correction of error should a person be falsely convicted. In In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases, Michael Radelet, Hugo Adam Bedau, and Constance Putnam studied hundreds of cases where there is some indication of an erroneous conviction. They found evidence that at least 400 persons have been falsely convicted of murder (Radelet 271). Of these cases, 23 were executed (Radelet 272-3), and another 27 were saved at the last moment, sometimes minutes before the scheduled execution (Radelet 275-6). ... Note that no time-frame has been stated on this homepage (this problem may be remedied by looking up the homepage's source). Its interesting to notice that although many more innocents may have been falsely convicted in DK or NL, none have had to die for the court's mistake. The same does not apply for at least 23 US-citizens. Which of the two cases are worse? Source: http://www.globaldialog.com/~theoacme/cappun2.html We have an extensivly exaustive appeals process when it comes to the ultimate punishment. I don't beleive that these are representative of the recent past. That siad, capital punishment is not done in every state. That is part of the whole federal thing. Some states have it, others do not. Opinons about capital punnishment vary, but if you are that much against it you can either vote that way, or move to a state that doesn't do it. 2. The fact that there is actually a prize awarded in the US for the most rediculous lawsuit (and ensuing conviction - if that's the proper word here) I think that is generaly civil suits. And YES our CIVIL system is WHACK! so I won't defend it at all. That said, I know of no civil system that isn't (IMO). - which was actually highlighted on this list about a month ago, serves to seriously undermine the statement that a jury of 12 unqualified people are more likely to reach the right conclusion in a case. I realise, though, that this argument may be countered since similar cases may be found in either of the two european countries. Its just that over here such cases are more of exceptions to the norm, whereas it seems to have become a bit of a phenomenon in the US. Please correct me on this if I'm wrong :) My primary way of learning of the US is TV (and this list). Things on TV are nothing like reality. Even when they are reality. They are of course exceptions to the norm. Only here for some reason we make a big deal out of exceptions to the norm. Gerneraly this leads to changes and so it's a good thing, but it also makes it look like it is all that happens to those who don't live here and experience normal reality enough to recognize these things as an anomoly. Gernealy, there would not be as much intertainment value to it if it were not, so it wouldn't end up on TV. No one would watch -normal-. Now, this may say something about Americans, and it -is- a common complaint many of us have about our own country. 3. Jan (I think) stated at one time that the European model might suffer from the fact that judges and lawyers have seen it all. I must admit that this sometimes seems to be true (and this is where I'll veer from objectivity and provide an example from my experience). In one case a person I know had her door kicked in by her ex-boyfriend, who, in front of numerous witnesses, dragged her outside by her hair and smashed her face completely up. I went to see the trial to satisfy my need for justice and found that it was actually three trials compiled into one. For forcing his way into the victims apartment, assaulting her, drunk driving, fleeing the scene after ramming another car under the influence of alcohol, beating up three guys who decided to follow him and attacking a police officer and his dog, this guy was sentenced to four (4!) months of prison and has his driver's license removed for 10 years (an extension of a similiar 3-year sentence, he already had). Now, that's rediculous. It wasn't even the first time he was in court. I was outraged. He should have been put away for at least four years. We have simmilar issues of course. A Jurry may be made up of mostly a homogeneous group and the person on trial may not fit that mold. Therefore they may be found guilty when they are not, or found guilty when they are, but the law does
Re:ICC was Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030626.2044, Jan Coffey wrote: Exactly! What you propose for the ICC is representative governance, but you don't use that same system for your own country. What do you mean? We DO use representative governance!!! You are going to have to clarify your point here becouse it looks to me like you are calling white black and black white. Prime example is that of your presidential elections. I got the following from http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm. On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. The above means that all votes for the other candidates in a state are essentially lost. In a true representative system (as we have in The Netherlands) you would simply tally all the votes (nationwide) for each candidate and declare winner the candidate who got the most votes. Over here we feel that this is far more democratic and far more resembles representative governance than your electoral college. (And it also costs a lot less time and money, and is a lot more efficient.) Of course, you could bring this up on That Other List; no doubt JDG will then explain to you that the US doesn't use the democratic principle of representative government because the US isn't a democracy... Whatever about the other list and JDG..whatever.. But the point is that in elections within a state it is democratic. Think of it as a buch of countries each signing a treaty of federal governance. Each state elects an electorate to vote for them the way they request. That electorate is reponsible for the treaty of election for a president. Governers and the like are elected by popular vote. If Europe feeralized do you think the smallest of states with the lowest population would allow a simple -per vote- election. Probably not, becouse this small country would constatnly get shafted. The United -States- we could have called ourselves the United Countries of American UCA. Each state has autonomy, (although less than they use to.) The electoral collage exists to ~normalize~ the process so that the little states are not -as- uninportant. That said, many americans, especialy the ones that live in big states, don't much care for the electoral collage. = _ 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:ICC was Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030626.0002, Jan Coffey wrote: IIRC, that's not going to happen: the EU recently decided NOT to federalise. Yes and the lack of the other two branches is troubeling. The EU doesn't have these three branches yet because it's not a country; the EU is a body in which a number of countries cooperate on many levels. And you must keep in mind that the EU and the ICC are two entirely different bodies; the ICC is not an EU court, it's a world court that just happens to have its offices in an EU member country. jeroen, we don't seem to be comunicating. You don't seem to be getting what I am saying, and I am guessing that I am not getting you either. So let me try again. 1) The US population believes that our system works becouse of the 3 branches. We would not want to have any one or two of these branches without the others. The ICC is one branch without the others. This concerns us greatly, we do not feel (and I speek for myself and a few others, but I believe my words to be true for the majority) that having a Judicial without the other two is a good thing. It would have more power than it should and would not be balance. Therefore the ICC is scarry to us and looks like the first step on a slipery slope twards an orwelian future we do not want. 2) (Seperate point based on the first) Even if there was an International 3 Branch System which the ICC was one branch of, we would be concerned that many other countries (maybe not yours) would not yet be prepared for that kind of federalism, and that, depending on the power of this gevernment, the US would not be prepared to take any steps backwards. This may be an unwarented fear in your eyes, but we have been a federation with little states (countries) having power, and an overall governemnt also having power. No onther country, except perhaps canada, has had as much experience with this sort of governance. The average American would even argue that the way Canada has done it is less than what we would want. If we were to be a part of a larger over-reaching world federation we would want to first see some experience by other countries and other federations. A first step twards this would be a federal EU. A Democratic China A Democratic and Federal Middle East. A Democratic and federal Africa. etc. Once such systems had prooven viable, then we would consider joining a world federation. Summery The ICC alone is a broken 1/3 of a federation in the American opion. We would not agree to an international judicial body without the other two branches. The world is not yet ready for reginaol, much less world federation. It will be a long time before the world is ready for such a system. In addition to this we have a lot of issues with the ICC as it is, but those can all be boiled down to the lack of the other two branches. What you will learn is that federal chriminal law is a very fragile creature. The only reason that our system works is becouse we have seperate bodies of governemnt. Legislative making the laws, Executive inforcing the laws, and Judicial judging the law in practice. That cannot be the reason. The Netherlands is not a federal country, but we do have those exact same three separate branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Works just fine. The point is you are one state, one people with more or less simmilare concerns. The US is a diverse people. The local culture in florids is very different from that in California, Texas is differnt than New Youk etc. You have never travelled around The Netherlands, have you? We are a very diverse people, which is understandable when you realise that we have people of pretty much every nationality and cultural background living within our borders. Local cultures very greatly throughout the country. But not LOCAL GOVERNMENTS every one of our states is the same as a country. Diverse people, varying culture etc. But we have a lot of THESE. Each of our states are like the differnent-states- in Europe. The only body in Europe that even comes close to this is the UK. I know how diverse and wonderful the Netcherlands are, but there is a big difference in scale, A meeting of Mayors and a meeting of governers is very different. Our governers deal with more or less the same issues that your presidents deal with. Our president is at a higher level. The rest of the branches are the same. Do you not get this? Our country may be a lot smaller than the US, but that doesn't mean we're some small homogenised society. In many respects we are quite similar to the US, the only difference is in the sheer scale. And that is the part that is important. The only thing that would be simmilar would be a federal Europe. The Netherlands has a very effective governemnt and one they should be very proud of. But they have not delt with the issues of governing geographicaly disperate
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:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030626.0018, Jan Coffey wrote: I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would trust someone who does it for a living. So, when you feel ill, you ask a not-medically-trained average person from the street for a diagnosis, rather than go see a physician (a trained professional who does this for a living)? That is a big differnce! I trust 12 of my peers to say whether or not I am guilty than 1 man or woman who has all of that power. Okay, then let's not ask *one* Joe Average to diagnose your illness, let's ask twelve Joe's. You don't feel well. You drag twelve people in from the street, and they all say that you're having a case of the common cold. Nothing to worry about, keep warm, take in plenty of vitamin C, and you'll be feeling a lot better in a few days. You have been diagnosed by twelve of your peers. Good for you. However, if you had consulted a *professional* (your physician) you would now have been in hospital because you actually have pneumonia. Unfortunately you didn't go see your physician, so rather than feeling a lot better in a few days, you'll be dead in a few days... So much for trust in a dozen untrained amateurs... That is rediculous! The differnce in doctors and judges is that a doctor is one you choose. He has a reputation to keep based on keeping you well. You can see 12 doctors if you want to. (it's called alternative opinions and if your really sick you definalty should do this). With crime, you don't get to pick your judge (if you could you could pick one that you knew or was your friend). Not all cases are cut and dry. A jury is more likely to err on the side of inocent than on the side of guilty in such cases. It takes such ultimate power to take someone elses life or freedom away from one person. The PEOPLE are making the dicision not THE GOVERNMENT! In the US we trust PEOPLE more than we trust GOVERNMENT. It is part of the reason we allways claim to be more free. You may not agree with this, but you are not going to convince us otherwise. Our nation is founded on such consepts. When someone allegedly broke a law, do you really believe that uneducated Joe Average is more qualified to determine whether a law really was broken than someone who has actually *studied* the laws? Yes absolutly! and not just one someone, 12 someones who have to agree! But why would those twelve be more qualified? You expect them to be able to tell if you broke a law, but they have never even studied law! It's like having your house built by someone who has never done construction work in his life! They may not be more qualified in determining that some intricate law (which they do not understand) was broken. But that is a good thing. If the law is so intricate that 12 average people can not understand whether or not it was broken then they must find the suspect inocent. becouse if they can not understand the law then they certinaly could not say -without a shadow of a doubt- that the law was broken. And yes we do trust our PEOPLE to be smart enough to understand this, and to make the right decision in this case. What it means is that the law itself is broken and needs to be fixed. We don't put up with intricat laws which require profesionals to understand whether or not we have broken them. So yes, 12 average people are more qualified. In fact much more qualified than anyone who has studied law. Someone who has studied law is in fact much ~less~ qualified in this respect. Remember we are not tring to make sure that all the real criminals are punnished, but that no inocents are. That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. The only real power they have is to declare someone guilty and determine appropriate punishment -- but then, that's what they are trained for and get paid for! And if they screw up, their decision can be overturned by a higher court. When religion and polotics come into play, that can become very shady buisness. I prefer 12 other reasonable people just like me, than one guy who might think that I need to be locked up becouse of my religions of political beliefs. Same thing can happen with a jury. If you have killed someone, and only one jury member votes not guilty because he happens to be the only one who shares your (rather radical) political views, you'll walk -- despite the fact that you were caught with the still smoking gun in your hand. That wouldn't exactly be fair, now would it? But we in the US prefer that posibility. It isn't fair, but it is much less fair for an inocent person to be commited for a crime they did not commit. Specificaly beouce the later can be used by one group to control others. Thuse ~~ taking away their freedom ~~. Besides both the prosecution and defence get to veto jury members they do not thing
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See other post about law complexity. Where more technical points of law are involved, the judge is involved, and he/she can dismiss the case, declare a mistrial, exclude evidence, instruct the jury on the points of law, order the jury not to consider certain information while making its decision But how can a judge know if the jury did in fact not consider certain information? After all, whatever happens in the jury room is secret. A judge's motives for a decision are public. Once again you seem to be concerned more with a criminal getting away than an inocent being punished. The Judge will know, becouse it is obvious when there wasn't reasonable proof without somthing the judge told them to dismiss. Remember we are not as concerned (in the way you are) about the other case. when the Jury finds inocent, but the judge believes that the crime was commited. Well, we are concerned. - \\Highly important We are concerned that in such cases the person would be found inocent. You are concerned in such cases that the person would be found guilty. ///Highly important\\ Wheather or not we can convince eachother of the correctness or betterness of one system or another, does this not iluminate why the US might not want agree to the ICC? It is not becouse we think we should be above some international law, but becouse we do not agree with the system of that law. The benefits I see of trial by jury are: - There are 13 people who must be convinced of your guilt. Even one dissent vote will void the trial. That's not necessarily a benefit. If a defendant is guilty but one member votes not guilty for whatever reason (like, FREX, he shares the defendant's radical political views) then the criminal will walk out of the courtroom a free man. Yes we believe that this is better 100s of times over, than one inocent man not leving the courtroom free. Having a larger voting group helps eliminate some hidden biases that might otherwise influence the decision unfairly. I'm curious, is there more than one judge deciding the guilty/innocent verdict in non-jury systems? Yes. I can't speak for other countries of course, but in The Netherlands only the lowest court has only one judge, higher courts have more judges. We want as little effect to the acused as possible. Otherwise those inforcing the law could use it to harase people. It would take a long time (in comparison) to reach a high enough level that would get enough people judging to be fair. - I'm guessing most judges belong to the upper class or close to it. (Law school isn't cheap, and judges get paid fairly well.) A poor defendant might have a better chance of understanding from a mixed jury of common people than from a weathy judge. And a rich defendant might have less chance of getting away with it for the same reason. That is in fact an argument *against* trial by jury. A jury is supposed to only consider the *facts* of the committed crime, it's not supposed to be influenced by the economic standing of the defendant. See highly important above. - There is less chance that a jury would become jaded (and hence biased) because, unlike a judge, they haven't seen/heard it all before. Jurors won't have the extensive previous experience of other cases that might color their perception of the current one. (This can be a mixed blessing, I think). Yet another argument against trial by jury. Just like with a physician, experience is of *benefit* to the judge. A jury doesn't have that experience. See highly important above. The downsides I see of a jury trial are: - It's possible to get some very _un_intelligent people on the jury. (See the OJ trial) There is not much protection against juror incompetency. There is however ample protection against incompetence of a judge: an incompetent judge will lose his job, and the cases he handled will be appealed. In fact, given that you can't exactly become a judge right out of Law School, it's highly unlikely that an incompetent person will be given that job in the first place. We in the US do not believe that the truism you present in the 2 paragraphs above is actualy true. We don't trust that, and we don't trust that the person will not change once they recieve such power. = _ 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:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jorpho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Indeed. I have read some criticism that trial by jury is not that it's all cracked up to be. For instance, there was once court case where the baliff happened to cough before delivering a guilty verdict to the judge, who interpreted his statement as not guilty. There was a lengthy, costly tangle in the legal system before the mistake could be righted. It has been said that there is a certain dramatic allure to the whole secret process of sending the jury off to deliberate before unveiling with a flourish what they agreed on, without any consderation given to how they arrived at this conclusion. But it might also be said that it would be too costly to train large numbers of people in the minutae of the law. -J I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would trust someone who does it for a living. That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. = _ 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:ICC was Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030624.2056, Jan Coffey wrote: Personaly I see the ICC as a step twards European federalization. I think that is a good thing for Europe, but not for the States. It's too much too fast. Let Europe federalize first and learn what the difficulties of such a system are. IIRC, that's not going to happen: the EU recently decided NOT to federalise. Yes and the lack of the other two branches is troubeling. Only problem is that I can't find a link to a news article about it. Martin, could you throw in your excellent talents at URL-finding for this? What you will learn is that federal chriminal law is a very fragile creature. The only reason that our system works is becouse we have seperate bodies of governemnt. Legislative making the laws, Executive inforcing the laws, and Judicial judging the law in practice. That cannot be the reason. The Netherlands is not a federal country, but we do have those exact same three separate branches: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Works just fine. The point is you are one state, one people with more or less simmilare concerns. The US is a diverse people. The local culture in florids is very different from that in California, Texas is differnt than New Youk etc. The concerns and style of governement in these areas are very very differnt. Our fenderal (over reaching) law only works becouse of the 3 branches. Any one branch alone would have too much power. The Netherlands has a very effective governemnt and one they should be very proud of. But they have not delt with the issues of governing geographicaly disperate, culturaly differnt, peoples with often differng values of areas of intrest. The US would not trust a Judicial branch only ICC and it would not trust a world federation with most of the world not as experianced at democratic feralization. I guess that sounds arogant, but, look at it from our perspective. I am not a netherlander and can not provide an apropriate analog, but I am sure you can find an analog. You can at least try before off handedly deciding that we are arogant becouse of this viewpoint and focusing on our supposed attitude and not put yourself in our position, and ask what you would do. For the general average American to be satisfied with the ICC we would have to have a simmilar system with 3 equaly powerful branches. Impossible: those three branches apply to a *country*, but the ICC is not a country but a Court of Justice. The ICC cannot have those three branches, as it would be *part* of one of those branches (Judicial). Exactly! Further we would have to have equal (by population not by state) democratic control over who manned the positions of such a governement. Why would you want to have that particular form of control over the ICC, when you don't even have that same particular form of control over your own government? We do. The number of congraspersons is determined by the population of the state. So is the number of electorats. Senators are the only per state component and it is done that way so that the little states do not get trampled on by the more populated ones. = _ 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?
--- 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!
Re:Re:Re:It's not just Bowie, or is it?
--- Jeroen van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At Stardate 20030625.2102, Jan Coffey wrote: I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would trust someone who does it for a living. So, when you feel ill, you ask a not-medically-trained average person from the street for a diagnosis, rather than go see a physician (a trained professional who does this for a living)? That is a big differnce! I trust 12 of my peers to say whether or not I am guilty than 1 man or woman who has all of that power. How is this not obvious to you? When someone allegedly broke a law, do you really believe that uneducated Joe Average is more qualified to determine whether a law really was broken than someone who has actually *studied* the laws? Yes absolutly! and not just one someone, 12 someones who have to agree! That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. The only real power they have is to declare someone guilty and determine appropriate punishment -- but then, that's what they are trained for and get paid for! And if they screw up, their decision can be overturned by a higher court. When religion and polotics come into play, that can become very shady buisness. I prefer 12 other reasonable people just like me, than one guy who might think that I need to be locked up becouse of my religions of political beliefs. (Remember that's what happened to a lot of our ancestors) = _ 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!
US doing it's part for the environment :It's not just Bowie, or is it?
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21273/story.htm BELGIUM: June 24, 2003 BRUSSELS - The United States will join forces with the European Union and other countries this week to develop a new technique to fight global warming pumping carbon dioxide (CO2) underground, EU sources said yesterday. The move will be another symbol of rapprochement between the EU and the United States on the climate change issue. They fell out in 2000 when Washington withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon sequestration is a way of keeping CO2 from fossil fuel use entering the atmosphere and adding to the greenhouse effect which prevents heat radiating back into space by injecting it into rock strata, mines or gas or oilfields. On the sidelines of a EU-U.S. summit in Washington on Wednesday, EU Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio will sign an international charter with the United States and other countries including Brazil, Canada, Russia and China creating a carbon sequestration leadership forum. It is a new charter on cleaning up carbon, an EU source told Reuters. In a similar move earlier this month the EU and the United States agreed to collaborate on researching hydrogen power, which could have less environmental impact than other fuels. Some environmentalists are sceptical of both hydrogen and carbon sequestration, saying they will allow the continued use of fossil fuels coal, oil and gas rather than a switch to renewable energies like solar and wind and reducing energy use. = _ 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:Why?
I don't think that would be the most benificial. I think that this whole buisness needs to be played out for it ever to end. After all how would you feel in the same position? I know how I would feel. The question is, does Mr. van Baardwijk actualy want it to end? Can he humble himself to accepting how it got to this point, and with dignity correct it? Can he fade from this social singularity or is the pull of the position now too aluring. It takes one to recognize one. I am humble enough to admit that. Trust me, I've been there. Now what? Mr. van Baardwijk? --- Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jorpho said: None of these messages really had any good reason to appear on this list. It is also not immediately obvious who is responsible for any of these messages - not Mr. van Baardwijk, nor this Arnett person I have never heard of otherwise - unless the From address provides any real indication. What has happened is that Jeroen has once again taken to mass-mailing everyone who is or has been subscribed to the other Brin-L with annoying attempts to defend himself against some insult or other, which I never even noticed. Despite being banned from the original Brin-L he is apparently reading it in one of the online archives. It's this sort of thing (but at a much worse level) that got him banned in the first place (oh, and threats of lawsuits, physical violence, attempts to hack the server and so on). I was hoping that the creation of a new list would stop this from happening again because I find it pretty tedious. As for the replies that are appearing here, that's because he's suppressing the recipient list on his spams and people replying are ccing this list. I don't know why. Can we all just forget this and get on with constructive discussions? Rich [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW! = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
Re:Why?
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let it go, and leave the old list alone. Or don't let it go, but call it for what it is. Their is no reason to sculk away, but resolution requires personal honesty, humility, and dignity. Come one Jeroen, do the honerable thing and step up. You wouldn't have been the first, and you won't be alone. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
