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

Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:00:48 -0700

The operative word in your quote is 'prove'.  The only way to 'prove' someone's guilt is in court.  Using evidence.  A confession cannot be the whole sum of evidence.  An investigation must still be done to correlate the information, because sometimes people make false confessions or lie about pertinent facts in their confessions.  And sometimes the police beat people into false confessions.

A trial is not needed to determine punishment.  A trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the person charged with a specific crime. The determination of punishment is the sentencing, which happens after a person is convicted of the crime with which s/he has been charged.

You have an awful lot of faith in the state.  But if the state is not obligated to prove it's case before an impartial judge and jury, the potential for abuse already inherent in the system becomes a solid reality.  We have to have the balance of the trial process and the protections of a defense.  It is vital for a stable democratic society to have protections for its citizens against the predations of its government.  THAT is why we have the rule of law.


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

I said, " 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." You said you are
using guilt and evidence interchangeably. So guilt can be determined
prior to the trial? I agree a trial is needed to determine
punishment, but sometimes it isn't needed to determine guilt. How can
there be instances of overwhelming guilt without a trial? I still
think people can be determined to be guilty without a trial.
Determining punishment maybe not, but determining guilt yes. Hmm, I
wonder if OJ would have had a trial to determine guilt if he had said
yes I killed my ex-wife and Ron Goldman that night.


--- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I meant guilt and evidence interchangably. You still have to have a
trial.
> As for the terrorists rotting in hell? I'll take rotting in a maximum
> security prison for the rest of their natural lives - provided they are
> convicted in as fair a trial as is possible under the circumstances.
>
> Also, I started writing this before, but I couldn't quite say it the
way I
> wanted. I am not angry that a plot was thwarted. I am incredibly happy
> that a plot was thwarted, particularly as it was due primarily to legal
> surveillance and communication across several countries. Good solid
police
> work and international cooperation meant that hundreds of people
kept their
> lives. So nobody died, and it turns out we now have proof that we don't
> need to sacrifice personal liberty and the rule of law to be safe.
These
> are things to celebrate.
>
> So I went and saw "Little Miss Sunshine." Effing hilarious.
>
> On 8/12/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > did you mean overwhelming guilt, or overwhelming evidence? I think I
> > may have worded my original statement incorrectly. Not "those people
> > they arrested" but "the people who did it." It's possible they
> > arrested innocent people, and even more likely that not everyone
> > involved was arrested, but I have no doubt there was a plot, and the
> > people who were planning it should rot in hell, whether they are
> > convicted or not. Is that better?
> >
> >
> > --- In
[email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Hannah Robinson"
> > <hjrobinson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 <ellengoodman6@> 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]
<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> >
> > > > "Hannah Robinson"
> > > >
> > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's kind of the whole point of a trial, Ellen.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/11/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> 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>
> > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > > > "denisesudell"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <dsudell7781@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In
> > > >
[email protected]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <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