It is the job of the defence to cast doubt on the case the prosecution presents and it is the job of the jury to find a man guilty ONLY if there is no reasonble doubt of his guilt.
[snapback]36658[/snapback]
Except for that little thing courts seem to forget quite often now days... innocent until proven guilty.
Not saying anything about this case, I did not follow it, rather stating in general and in response to swift.
What actually interests me here is how things like this are lately becoming "double homicide" because he's killing an unborn baby. Sorry but imo it's not a person yet. Mine may be a bleak view but it's not even breathing air on it's own, thus it's not it's own being yet.
[snapback]36666[/snapback]
I actually have a similar question...
If he killed his unborn baby and that's considered homicide, why is a doctor performing an abortion on a baby that will LIVE if you remove it from the womb NOT homicide? (My best friend was born at five months.)
Base the severity of punishment on the severity of the crime. If there's evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, punish. If there isn't, do not punish. It is a perversion of justice to sentence an accused to any punishment without having provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how light the punishment. Lowering the severity of the punishment does not lower the burden of proof.
[snapback]36691[/snapback]
I didn't state one way or the other how I feel about this case; because I really have no opinion ether way and I think the whole thing got far too much media time over much more important issues like Ukraine’s elections for example.
What I meant was, while in this particular case it means little given the situation in California, this sets a bad precedent. I don' think they have enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, and if such a case were to take place in a state with a much faster system (Texas, Florida) someone could be executed before all the evidence is found. At least if they are in prison they have a chance if they are innocent. If not, then prison for life is far worse then a quick death IMO.
Base the severity of punishment on the severity of the crime. If there's evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, punish. If there isn't, do not punish. It is a perversion of justice to sentence an accused to any punishment without having provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how light the punishment. Lowering the severity of the punishment does not lower the burden of proof.
[snapback]36691[/snapback]
I didn't state one way or the other how I feel about this case; because I really have no opinion ether way and I think the whole thing got far too much media time over much more important issues like Ukraine’s elections for example.
What I meant was, while in this particular case it means little given the situation in California, this sets a bad precedent. I don' think they have enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, and if such a case were to take place in a state with a much faster system (Texas, Florida) someone could be executed before all the evidence is found. At least if they are in prison they have a chance if they are innocent. If not, then prison for life is far worse then a quick death IMO.
[snapback]36707[/snapback]
If it could not be proven beyond reasonble doubt that he was not guilty, he really shouldn't have even been tried. I can't tell you for sure that were I a jury member in that particular case that I would have found him guilty, but I can tell you that often the evidence that the media proclaims the prosecution is presenting in a case and the evidence that is acctually being presented in the case is a fair bit different.
At this point I want to congradulate scoot. He is absolutly correct, the severity of the punishment for a crime must not be linked to the reasonability to of the evidence in any way if we intend to keep integrady in the system whatsoever. Crimes must be punished appropriately due to the severity of the crime, not the convincingness of the evidence. A man is either set free because he may be innocent, or he is convicted guilty and must suffer the full punishment for the crimes he commited.
I'm not saying that he IS guilty, I'm just saying that he was FOUND guilty, and thus we now must prosume his guilt until it can be proven otherwize. If there was resonable doubt in the case, then he should not have been found guilty, thus since he was found guilty, there should be no reasonble doubt found in the case. I understand that jourys can make mistakes, but no one here is prepared to speculate as to the aptitued of the joury in this case, because other than the verdict, none of us acctually saw it in action, and none of us can confirm the virdict is even reasonbly questionable. Keep in mind, these people didn't just sit down in a room and pick yes no votes out of a hat until all of them had a yes, they deliberated until it came to the point that none of them questioned the guilt of the man in question.
ABS, my point still stands there... I court is called to proove or disprove the guilt of a man, therefore if they find him guilty then he is NOT INNOCENT. 'Innocent until proven guilty' as a term refers to the right of any man to not be punished in any way for a crime he has not yet been legally convicted of, it doesn't mean that courts can't rule guilty in a case.
Base the severity of punishment on the severity of the crime. If there's evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, punish. If there isn't, do not punish. It is a perversion of justice to sentence an accused to any punishment without having provided evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter how light the punishment. Lowering the severity of the punishment does not lower the burden of proof.
[snapback]36691[/snapback]
I didn't state one way or the other how I feel about this case; because I really have no opinion ether way and I think the whole thing got far too much media time over much more important issues like Ukraine’s elections for example.
What I meant was, while in this particular case it means little given the situation in California, this sets a bad precedent. I don' think they have enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt, and if such a case were to take place in a state with a much faster system (Texas, Florida) someone could be executed before all the evidence is found. At least if they are in prison they have a chance if they are innocent. If not, then prison for life is far worse then a quick death IMO.
[snapback]36707[/snapback]
If it could not be proven beyond reasonble doubt that he was not guilty, he really shouldn't have even been tried. I can't tell you for sure that were I a jury member in that particular case that I would have found him guilty, but I can tell you that often the evidence that the media proclaims the prosecution is presenting in a case and the evidence that is acctually being presented in the case is a fair bit different.
At this point I want to congradulate scoot. He is absolutly correct, the severity of the punishment for a crime must not be linked to the reasonability to of the evidence in any way if we intend to keep integrady in the system whatsoever. Crimes must be punished appropriately due to the severity of the crime, not the convincingness of the evidence. A man is either set free because he may be innocent, or he is convicted guilty and must suffer the full punishment for the crimes he commited.
I'm not saying that he IS guilty, I'm just saying that he was FOUND guilty, and thus we now must prosume his guilt until it can be proven otherwize. If there was resonable doubt in the case, then he should not have been found guilty, thus since he was found guilty, there should be no reasonble doubt found in the case. I understand that jourys can make mistakes, but no one here is prepared to speculate as to the aptitued of the joury in this case, because other than the verdict, none of us acctually saw it in action, and none of us can confirm the virdict is even reasonbly questionable. Keep in mind, these people didn't just sit down in a room and pick yes no votes out of a hat until all of them had a yes, they deliberated until it came to the point that none of them questioned the guilt of the man in question.
ABS, my point still stands there... I court is called to proove or disprove the guilt of a man, therefore if they find him guilty then he is NOT INNOCENT. 'Innocent until proven guilty' as a term refers to the right of any man to not be punished in any way for a crime he has not yet been legally convicted of, it doesn't mean that courts can't rule guilty in a case.
[snapback]36727[/snapback]
i had decided long ago not to vocalize my view on this, and i live in Texas so i suppose the whole idea of execution isnt such a big deal to me... don't kill anyone and you dont have to worry about it.(yeah but you can be found guilty when youre not... blah blah i dont care.) Anyhow i completely agree with scooter and you swiftspear
PS. Spellcheck is win friend.
I like how lowcrawler just said
"I dont care if your innocent if your put on death row"
christ man, thats messed up.
[snapback]36924[/snapback]
Hey man, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think the system we have is perfect or that there aren't things that shouldn't change. I'm just saying, guilty and innocent should be kept compleatly different entities from the punishment of a crime.
I personally don't agree with the concept of exectuting people for thier crimes in any context, but if that is the punishment that is being issued for that crime then that is the punishment that is being issued for that crime. If he is found guilty he must be punished fairly for the crime that he has committed. If there was not enough evidence to warrent the severity of the punishment, then he should not have been found guilty at all.
He either killed someone or he didn't, we shouldn't be giving him a limited consequence for maby.
I like how lowcrawler just said
"I dont care if your innocent if your put on death row"
christ man, thats messed up.
[snapback]36924[/snapback]
>:D
yeah...well... thats me. I'm not known for being a sympathetic guy... ask my lady. Most people know me as a rude, obnoxious b**tard.
>:D again.