Re: [wc] Re: am I crazy to go to London in October?

Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:07:23 -0700

Sigh.  I'm going to bullet-point this one:

1) No one's arguing that these people were arrested without cause.  We're taking exception with your implied belief that a trial is unnecessary in instances of overwhelming guilt.  The rule of law dictates that a person suspected of a crime be charged under the stated laws of the land and that the state must marshall evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person under trial has in fact committed those crimes and should be punished for them.  The burden of proof is on the state, not on the defendant.  And it's certainly not in the court of public opinion.

2) Claiming responsibility (i.e confessing) is not proof in and of itself that the group was behind it.  There are many reasons why an organization might claim false credit.

3) A criminal trial should follow the dictates I set out earlier.  The farce that is Saddam's trial should not be held up as an example of a working system of justice. 

4)  In the article cited, the writer does not use the word 'allegedly' because the word 'suspect' is used appropriately to describe the individuals arrested and accused of the crime.

I understand that you're upset, but you're also wrong. 

On 8/12/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

OK, am I the only one who is pretty sure that at least some of these
people did something wrong? This is pretty extreme action if they
didn't. Tough call, I know, but if they had blown themselves up they
would have been pretty guilty and there still wouldn't have been a
trial. I read some group claimed responsibility. If a group takes
responsibility for something, they are pretty much admitting they did
it without a trial. Sometimes a trial is just to determine
punishment, not prove guilt. Did Saddam Hussein go to trial to
determine if he was guilty or not?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053_pf.html

I noticed an unusual absence of the word "allegedly" in this article,
usually used when reporters don't want to be accused of making false
accusations. They seem pretty sure that these people were planning
something big. If you really think I'm jumping to conclusions, I'm
willing to entertain that possibility.

--- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson"


<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's kind of the whole point of a trial, Ellen.
>
> On 8/11/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm getting the impression that they have good reason to believe the
> > majority of them are guilty. Sorry, I'm convinced. You don't need a
> > trial to prove someone is guilty.
> >
> > --- In
[email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "denisesudell"
> >
> > <dsudell7781@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In
[email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,

> > "Ellen" <ellengoodman6@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > "Those people they arrested should rot in hell. . . . Yes it's
> > > possible they arrested some people that were innocent, but I am
> > > certain they aren't all innocent. . . . This is sick and these
people
> > > deserve whatever is coming to them."
> > >
> > > Boy, if I ever get arrested and charged with a crime, I hope you
don't
> > > serve on the jury.
> > >
> > > Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty"?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>


__._,_.___

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to