|
Consider the Death Penalty... | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
NOTHING "deserves" death. If you are for it as a | by adiplomat | 2004-01-15 09:00:24 |
|
I don't quite get you here ... | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 09:12:39 |
|
If you are a murderer judged incapable of reform, | by adiplomat | 2004-01-15 09:29:40 |
|
I have no problem with that but, | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 10:19:01 |
|
Dude, "Not Guilty" != "Innocent" | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 12:18:46 |
|
In the USA it does! | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 12:47:26 |
|
Presumed != Proved | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 12:51:27 |
| Let me back up and do this right |
by Slamlander |
2004-01-15 13:09:44 |
The reason that the law was designed that way is because of the excesses shown in the French Republic. France STILL has Napoleanic justice. It is also extremely difficult to prove innocence, even when you are. Therefore the burden of proof was placed on the prosecution. BTW, you can thank Ben Franklin for that.
The fundimental concept is that, in the law, the presumption of innocence is foremost. Regardless of modern implementation, a suspect is just that, ONLY a suspect until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. This means that, the suspect is innocent, period. They are ONLY suspected of commiting a crime and if the prosecution trials them and cannot make the charges stick then they are NOT to be further prosecuted!
The civil v. criminal argument is a fine slice tht lets everyone, including the US Gov, get around the US Constitution. It is inherently NOT a valid argument. The civil penalties that OJ was convicted of presupposes him having been convicted. How could an exhonerated man be convicted in a system setup and operated Constitutionally? The answer is that he can't and that he could anyway raises serious questions about the US legal system.
BTW, I don't give a rats tuchus about OJ. But, people were so into getting his blood that noone noticed all of our rights being violated. What they did to him, they can also do to you.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Correction: | by Naruki | 2004-01-15 13:20:07 |
|
Your last para was correct | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 13:32:59 |
|
It seems more ludicrous to me | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:52:07 |
|
Yes, and why is that? | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:03:40 |
|
And just how did he manage that? | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 15:29:51 |
|
at the risk of revealing my ignorance :) | by gibuu | 2004-01-15 15:35:45 |
|
hehe | by gibuu | 2004-01-15 15:40:59 |
|
The test is "reasonable doubt" | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:42:27 |
|
Yeah and we all saw Cochran get plenty of that | by Slamlander | 2004-01-15 15:48:23 |
|
All of that is irrelevant to the point. | by BloodyViking | 2004-01-15 13:41:14 |
