|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 16:41:42 GMT -6
So that the defense attorney can't poke holes in their lies? That makes the problem worse. Why are you certain it is a lie? Certainty isn't required. The point is that they're criminals, and untrustworthy. Along with the other nefarious skills in their arsenal, many of them are accomplished liars. It stands to reason that, if we allow them to testify, some of them will lie. And they may fool the jury. Miscarriages of justice become more likely as a result. Your absurd suggestion that we use a recording makes this worse, since defense attorneys won't even have the opportunity to cross examine the (potential) liar.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2015 17:15:28 GMT -6
Why are you certain it is a lie? Certainty isn't required. The point is that they're criminals, and untrustworthy. Along with the other nefarious skills in their arsenal, many of them are accomplished liars. It stands to reason that, if we allow them to testify, some of them will lie. And they may fool the jury. Miscarriages of justice become more likely as a result. Your absurd suggestion that we use a recording makes this worse, since defense attorneys won't even have the opportunity to cross examine the (potential) liar. Hell many regular witness's will lie, prosecutors, defense attoneys are just as qualified to lie. Why trust or have any court or prisons. Our politicians lie, decieve, some even end up in prison too. Some do not but should. Only defense attorneys never lie of course.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 20:00:11 GMT -6
Certainty isn't required. The point is that they're criminals, and untrustworthy. Along with the other nefarious skills in their arsenal, many of them are accomplished liars. It stands to reason that, if we allow them to testify, some of them will lie. And they may fool the jury. Miscarriages of justice become more likely as a result. Your absurd suggestion that we use a recording makes this worse, since defense attorneys won't even have the opportunity to cross examine the (potential) liar. Hell many regular witness's will lie, prosecutors, defense attoneys are just as qualified to lie. Someone who has never committed a crime probably isn't going to start by lying under oath. But a convicted felon… well, I know HE doesn't mind breaking the law.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2015 20:16:47 GMT -6
All those innocent ones in prison are you saying would lie?
How many witness's have recanted later? To many. Not inside snitches with records.
So, yes those with an agenda would lie. Not completely honest.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2015 23:24:12 GMT -6
All those innocent ones in prison are you saying would lie? You're the one who is sure they are all guilty. So you DEFINITELY ought not to trust them. I wonder how you can trust the process to determine guilt accurately, when it seems you have even more doubts about it than I do. Maybe, like Joe, you just don't care whether we get the right guy, just so long as someone gets juiced.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 30, 2015 8:34:13 GMT -6
All those innocent ones in prison are you saying would lie? You're the one who is sure they are all guilty. So you DEFINITELY ought not to trust them. I wonder how you can trust the process to determine guilt accurately, when it seems you have even more doubts about it than I do. Maybe, like Joe, you just don't care whether we get the right guy, just so long as someone gets juiced. I never said they are all guilty, your telling me what I think again. I also believe some were guilty as all get out & walked.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 30, 2015 9:52:49 GMT -6
you just don't care whether we get the right guy, just so long as someone gets juiced. That is not what I stated. I stated that it's the process that's important, not the result. As long as all parties make a REASONABLE effort to ascertain the guilty and innocent, the requirements of justice are met. Perfect justice is for idealistic nitwits and philosophers. It's neither attainable or desirable.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 30, 2015 9:54:55 GMT -6
Someone who has never committed a crime probably isn't going to start by lying under oath. But a convicted felon… well, I know HE doesn't mind breaking the law. This is sophistry. Everyone lies. That is not the point. You would never convict based on the testimony of a convict, no matter how credible the testimony. Someone like you should never sit on a jury.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2015 9:07:29 GMT -6
You're the one who is sure they are all guilty. So you DEFINITELY ought not to trust them. I wonder how you can trust the process to determine guilt accurately, when it seems you have even more doubts about it than I do. Maybe, like Joe, you just don't care whether we get the right guy, just so long as someone gets juiced. I never said they are all guilty, your telling me what I think again. It isn't clear what you think. On the one hand, you seem to trust the process well enough to think we can reliably execute the convicted without worrying that we are convicting the innocent. Yet when pushed, you seem to admit that the testimony of convicts is unreliable, but then so is everyone else's, everybody lies… etc. Which makes me wonder why you trust the process at all.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2015 9:14:40 GMT -6
you just don't care whether we get the right guy, just so long as someone gets juiced. That is not what I stated. I stated that it's the process that's important, not the result. As long as all parties make a REASONABLE effort to ascertain the guilty and innocent, the requirements of justice are met. There is nothing reasonable about getting a scumbag to testify against someone in return for a reduction in the sentence he deserves. That compromises justice twice over.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2015 9:15:41 GMT -6
Someone who has never committed a crime probably isn't going to start by lying under oath. But a convicted felon… well, I know HE doesn't mind breaking the law. This is sophistry. Everyone lies. That is not the point. Not everyone lies under oath. That is a crime. To suppose that everyone does it is to suppose that no-one obeys the law.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2015 9:20:31 GMT -6
You would never convict based on the testimony of a convict, no matter how credible the testimony. The scumbag's testimony is credible only when it is corroborated by other evidence. But in that case, we can use the other evidence and dispense with the testimony.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 1, 2015 13:17:58 GMT -6
I never said they are all guilty, your telling me what I think again. It isn't clear what you think. On the one hand, you seem to trust the process well enough to think we can reliably execute the convicted without worrying that we are convicting the innocent. Yet when pushed, you seem to admit that the testimony of convicts is unreliable, but then so is everyone else's, everybody lies… etc. Which makes me wonder why you trust the process at all. I trust no one no matter who they are or their title. We should trust when the process has been completed. With facts presented. That to me is why Casey Anothy walked, she played her games for months where even the poor childs body could leave no proof. Yet, I bellieve she did murder her own child. To this day I do believe OJ murdered them both & walked. I do believe when Dahmer stated he could not control his impulses & did not understand why he was a serial killer. I believe he spoke with honesty on it all.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2015 14:54:50 GMT -6
The scumbag's testimony is credible only when it is corroborated by other evidence. ; All the spin you throw out there, it is "you" who even if credible with evidence, you would not except a person or want their testimony in court or by recorded testimony. The cannot be trusted to be credible.................I stated" over & over if facts lead to it is credible information , why not? This is not clear enough to respond to.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2015 14:56:20 GMT -6
It isn't clear what you think. On the one hand, you seem to trust the process well enough to think we can reliably execute the convicted without worrying that we are convicting the innocent. Yet when pushed, you seem to admit that the testimony of convicts is unreliable, but then so is everyone else's, everybody lies… etc. Which makes me wonder why you trust the process at all. I trust no one no matter who they are or their title. We should trust when the process has been completed. With facts presented. That to me is why Casey Anothy walked, she played her games for months where even the poor childs body could leave no proof. Yet, I bellieve she did murder her own child. To this day I do believe OJ murdered them both & walked. I do believe when Dahmer stated he could not control his impulses & did not understand why he was a serial killer. I believe he spoke with honesty on it all. You say you believe some people and don't believe others. So what? There is nothing here that contributes to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 1, 2015 18:01:26 GMT -6
.I stated" over & over if facts lead to it is credible information , why not? This is not clear enough to respond to. Your not as clear as you believe you are.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 1, 2015 19:03:06 GMT -6
stated" over & over if facts lead to it is credible information , why not? This is not clear enough to respond to.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 1, 2015 19:15:14 GMT -6
I trust no one no matter who they are or their title. We should trust when the process has been completed. With facts presented. That to me is why Casey Anothy walked, she played her games for months where even the poor childs body could leave no proof. Yet, I bellieve she did murder her own child. To this day I do believe OJ murdered them both & walked. I do believe when Dahmer stated he could not control his impulses & did not understand why he was a serial killer. I believe he spoke with honesty on it all. You say you believe some people and don't believe others. So what? There is nothing here that contributes to the discussion. Baboon or human who has killer instinct. no real difference except one has two legs the other four.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 1, 2015 19:38:21 GMT -6
Not everyone lies under oath. That is a crime. To suppose that everyone does it is to suppose that no-one obeys the law. No one does, where I live.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 1, 2015 19:39:51 GMT -6
There is nothing reasonable about getting a scumbag to testify against someone in return for a reduction in the sentence he deserves. That compromises justice twice over. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's no different than any other testimony that's paid. Both sides do it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 11:40:21 GMT -6
This is not clear enough to respond to. Your not as clear as you believe you are. Yes, you're clearly right about that.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 11:41:33 GMT -6
You say you believe some people and don't believe others. So what? There is nothing here that contributes to the discussion. Baboon or human who has killer instinct. no real difference except one has two legs the other four. Did somebody mention baboons on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 11:42:28 GMT -6
Not everyone lies under oath. That is a crime. To suppose that everyone does it is to suppose that no-one obeys the law. No one does, where I live. So you're a lawbreaker. After all the preaching.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 11:44:11 GMT -6
There is nothing reasonable about getting a scumbag to testify against someone in return for a reduction in the sentence he deserves. That compromises justice twice over. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. It's no different than any other testimony that's paid. Both sides do it. An expert witness risks his reputation by lying, plus it's against the law. What does the creep from the pen risk?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 2, 2015 14:16:04 GMT -6
An expert witness risks his reputation by lying, plus it's against the law. Perjury is legal if it's not enforced. The reputations of expert witnesses aren't any better than those of a prison snitch, in my opinion. A hired gun is just that. It is not a rational process that decides the credibility of a witness in the mind of a juror. That decision is nothing more than an educated guess. I submit that a fellow inmate has better and more credible knowledge of a defendant than someone who has never spent time with him.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 2, 2015 14:24:19 GMT -6
So you're a lawbreaker. After all the preaching. Me? Preaching? We all break various laws. There are so many of them. Do you always stop at the limit line? Ever gone 26 mph in a 25 mph zone? Did you wait til you were 18 to lose your virginity? I'm just saying criminal justice is a necessarily inexact and decidedly human enterprise, and you're pursuit of perfect jurisprudence is foolish.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 14:51:37 GMT -6
So you're a lawbreaker. After all the preaching. Me? Preaching? We all break various laws. There are so many of them. Do you always stop at the limit line? Ever gone 26 mph in a 25 mph zone? Did you wait til you were 18 to lose your virginity? I was 19. But I admit I'd've lost it much sooner if I'd had the chance. But as for the others, they're not felonies. Perjury, however, is. I don't expect people to casually commit felonies in the presence of officers of the court. A request to make things better is not the same as a need for perfection.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2015 15:02:03 GMT -6
An expert witness risks his reputation by lying, plus it's against the law. Perjury is legal if it's not enforced. Perjury is a felony. And it is enforced. Sometimes even in civil cases... www.nytimes.com/1998/02/18/opinion/the-perjury-loophole.htmlThen you have a funny way of evaluating a reputation. If an expert's testimony agrees with his published work, then there is every reason to believe him. After all, his published work has been through the process of peer review by other researchers. If, on the other hand, his testimony does not agree with what he has published, then he either hasn't published on the subject, which means he isn't formally an expert, or he is disagreeing with his own published work. Either way, the opposition counsel can use that to tear his testimony to shreds. What equivalent controls do we have with prison snitches?
|
|