OK do you believe someone or multiple people are guilty of this plot? I do, and I want them to rot in hell. You want them to rot in jail. I think jail often doesn't do the trick, especially for something like this. I never said they don't need a trial. I just meant I don't need a trial for me to believe that they're guilty. I believe OJ was guilty. The trial didn't prove he was guilty, but I still believe he was guilty. If Scott Petersen had been found not guilty I would have still believed he was guilty. I find it hard to believe I'm alone in this. If someone watches someone else murder a third person, and says that's who did it, I'm pretty sure they're guilty, regardless of what the trial says. So I rush to judgment. What I think doesn't really matter in the long run. I can think these people are guilty as hell. What the trial says won't change my opinion. If there isn't enough evidence to convict someone that doesn't necessarily change the fact that I think they're guilty.
--- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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]<weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Hannah Robinson" > > <hjrobinson@> 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 <ellengoodman6@> 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> > > <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> > > > > <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> > > > > > > <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > "denisesudell" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <dsudell7781@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In > > > > > > > > [email protected] <weingartenchatters%40yahoogroups.com> > > <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 <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weingartenchatters/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
