Does our justice system deliver justice


VIBC
No Party Affiliation
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

No, you shouldn't convict innocent people.
Now, it would be helpful if everyone told the absolute truth so that guilt or innocence are a guarantee. Maybe, since Santa Claus has a list ...

Of course you shouldn't convict innocent people and you know very well, CC, that it's not what I'm suggesting.

I guess it suits you to pretend I'm saying something else so that you can disagree. That's pointless and not intelligent. Sneering about The Count of Monte Christo or Santa Clause isn't, either.

My question was and is whether it's "right" to convict someone if you don't know for certain that they're guilty. Don't bother repeating that it's difficult to know for certain. That should go without saying but apparently it's about all you can say.

I'm done with this unless somebody shows up with more sensible comments.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

Of course you shouldn't convict innocent people and you know very well, CC, that it's not what I'm suggesting.
I guess it suits you to pretend I'm saying something else so that you can disagree. That's pointless and not intelligent. Sneering about The Count of Monte Christo or Santa Clause isn't, either.
My question was and is whether it's "right" to convict someone if you don't know for certain that they're guilty. Don't bother repeating that it's difficult to know for certain. That should go without saying but apparently it's about all you can say.
I'm done with this unless somebody shows up with more sensible comments.

Oh, well. Technically you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Kreskin
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

Of course you shouldn't convict innocent people and you know very well, CC, that it's not what I'm suggesting.

I guess it suits you to pretend I'm saying something else so that you can disagree. That's pointless and not intelligent. Sneering about The Count of Monte Christo or Santa Clause isn't, either.

My question was and is whether it's "right" to convict someone if you don't know for certain that they're guilty. Don't bother repeating that it's difficult to know for certain. That should go without saying but apparently it's about all you can say.

I'm done with this unless somebody shows up with more sensible comments.

Are you suggesting "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be changed? If someone is murdered and there's only a mile long list of circumstantial evidence that there should never should be a conviction?
 
VIBC
No Party Affiliation
#34
"Are you suggesting "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be changed? If someone is murdered and there's only a mile long list of circumstantial evidence that there should never should be a conviction?"

I'm suggesting it's worth thinking about (and I haven't said never convict). I don't see a problem with considering the idea that if you can't be absolutely certain, maybe you shouldn't imprison somebody, potentially ruining their life and that of their family. I'm suggesting it's not unreasonable to think about that.
 
VIBC
No Party Affiliation
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Oh, well. Technically you are innocent until proven guilty.

"proven" - that's the point.
 
Danbones
Free Thinker
#36
Having been convicted at one time till the forensic report arrived AFTER the trial exonerating me and exposing a couple of STUPID crooked small town cops, prosecutors, and lawyers, I can tell you our legal system sucks dik majorly.

Of course kreskin is for convicting on NO evidence and without proof, he is a confirmed trumphater.

Say, how's the russian collusion scam playing out these days kreskin ?
I see hitlery's emails and cover up docs are out at Judicial Watch doood!

It isn't just the EVIDENCE of the crime that they get you on, it's the EVIDENCE of the cover up.

COVER-UP! Smoking Gun Documents on #ClintonEmailScandal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu_9hLPncok
422 pages.

Not to mention just look at U.N.true doh! I see he won't commit to a court date re Scheer's accusations about his and his office's criminality.
Last edited by Danbones; Apr 16th, 2019 at 08:34 PM..
 
VIBC
No Party Affiliation
#37
"Not proven"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...itics-35659541

"the general perception has been that a "not proven" verdict suggests a sheriff or jury believes the accused is guilty, but does not have sufficient evidence to convict"
 
Kreskin
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by Danbones View Post

Having been convicted at one time till the forensic report arrived AFTER the trial exonerating me and exposing a couple of STUPID crooked small town cops, prosecutors, and lawyers, I can tell you our legal system sucks dik majorly.
Of course kreskin is for convicting on NO evidence and without proof, he is a confirmed trumphater.
Say, how's the russian collusion scam playing out these days kreskin ?
I see hitlery's emails and cover up docs are out at Judicial Watch doood!

It isn't just the EVIDENCE of the crime that they get you on, it's the EVIDENCE of the cover up.
COVER-UP! Smoking Gun Documents on #ClintonEmailScandal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu_9hLPncok
422 pages.
Not to mention just look at U.N.true doh! I see he won't commit to a court date re Scheer's accusations about his and his office's criminality.

Don't you have a Mexican caravan of rapist drug dealers to tend to, dummy?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by VIBC View Post

I know that you and plenty of others consider the death penalty appropriate in some cases, but that is your/their assessment and doesn't make it a fact; opinions differ.
It is not correct to say there is no reason why "taxpayers" - we're ALL taxpayers - should pay to 'keep these kind alive.' The reason is that the government elected by the taxpayers has decided the matter on their behalf, and as far as I know the majority of the electorate agrees with them that we should avoid using the death penalty.
I understand and respect your feelings & opinion on the matter, TS, but others don't have to share them.

True they don't have to share my opinions but at the same time I should not have to finance their opinions. So if the do gooders want to keep vile beings like Bernardo and Pickton alive they should pay the bill for jail, not the rest of us.
 
Kreskin
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

True they don't have to share my opinions but at the same time I should not have to finance their opinions. So if the do gooders want to keep vile beings like Bernardo and Pickton alive they should pay the bill for jail, not the rest of us.

Even if the death penalty costs more? 25 years of lawyering could feed several lives of prisoners.
 
VIBC
No Party Affiliation
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

True they don't have to share my opinions but at the same time I should not have to finance their opinions.

They're not "their opinions" they are our choices where "us" is all of us together, abiding by what the majority of us decides. That's the theory. Despite its flaws it works tolerably well.

In a functioning society the do-gooders and the do-badders all contribute to the pot that funds the group's decisions. Everybody gets things they want, or can use, together with things they don't or can't. Some of those things; like legal and justice systems, prisons, public sanitation, infrastructure, transport etc. would be impossible otherwise.


Even while complaining, we all understand this; or I thought we did.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#42
Let's put it to a National referendum and go with the consensus of the people not a minority group screaming the loudest.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#43
There is a serious argument to be made that the inquisitorial system practiced by most continental European countries produces better outcomes than the adversarial system practiced by England and its progeny.

But we don't do serious arguments here, unless by "serious argument" you mean outshouting your interlocutor and bringing more logical fallacies than your interlocutor does.
 
Kreskin
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Let's put it to a National referendum and go with the consensus of the people not a minority group screaming the loudest.

What's your referendum question?
 
Hoid
#45
It isn't the Bernardos and Pictons that concern me - its the David Milgards.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

It isn't the Bernardos and Pictons that concern me - its the David Milgards.

It's the ones that they haven't caught yet that concern me.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by Kreskin View Post

Even if the death penalty costs more? 25 years of lawyering could feed several lives of prisoners.

All That is not necessary. It is simply a way for lawyers to make more money.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

It isn't the Bernardos and Pictons that concern me - its the David Milgards.

Yeah I can se how you would love Pickton and Bernardo to be running around free.
 
Hoid
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Yeah I can se how you would love Pickton and Bernardo to be running around free.

right

its either execution or they run around free


****ing moron
 
VIBC
No Party Affiliation
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

****ing moron

There's a lot of that going around
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Make trials a subscription service that allows people to leave comments on any trial they wish to follow, in real time. Allow the Judge to see all the comments.

You just described the forums. Not a good idea.
 

Similar Threads

117
80
U.S. Justice System more just?
by JLM | Oct 14th, 2010