|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2017 4:31:08 GMT -6
As for compensating the convicted for "wrongful imprisonment," I would do away with that entirely, as would most people. What is your evidence that most people would do away with that? So you used to be rational, but you've made a complete recovery. As usual, that doesn't make any sense. If you didn't care about justice for criminals, you'd be happy to execute pedophiles and shoplifters, but let murderers go free. It wouldn't be just, but, hey, you don't care about justice for criminals... Again, this is just silly and incoherent. Burglary has the same standard of proof as murder. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't make it reasonable to execute burglars.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2017 4:33:00 GMT -6
You believe in justice for the convicted criminal but you obviously do not believe in justice for the law-abiding who were wrongfully imprisoned. No one who was accorded due process and legally and constitutionally convicted is wrongfully imprisoned, notwithstanding whatever exoneration may come later. The term "wrongful" is a misnomer. If there are no wrongful convictions, then the justice system is perfect. Yet you have professed this to be both impossible and undesirable.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2017 9:45:57 GMT -6
If there are no wrongful convictions, then the justice system is perfect. We disagree on the relevant definition of "wrongful." The state should not be liable for compensating released inmates who were lawfully convicted in good faith.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2017 9:53:35 GMT -6
What is your evidence that most people would do away with that? My intuition, which is probably better than yours. I did, after all, call Trump's election a year in advance. How about you? So you used to be rational, but you've made a complete recovery. No, only an irrational person demands an indeterminate, blind pursuit of perfect justice. A rational person knows justice is a human enterprise, subject to human limitations. That's why we have statutes of limitation and rules of criminal procedure, so that we have a system that works, notwithstanding the objections of the irrational. If you didn't care about justice for criminals, you'd be happy to execute pedophiles and shoplifters, but let murderers go free. I wouldn't be happy to do it, but the responsibility for those executions would be on the pedophiles and shoplifters. Burglary has the same standard of proof as murder. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't make it reasonable to execute burglars. It's perfectly reasonable to execute burglars, if that is what is defined in a state's penal code for the crime of burglary. They used to hang horse thieves. Are you saying that was wrong, too? I sure don't.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2017 13:39:14 GMT -6
What is your evidence that most people would do away with that? My intuition, which is probably better than yours. We don't sentence people to death or prison based on intuition. That's because intuition ain't evidence. Knowing you, you probably made every possible prediction but only owned the ones that won. Since you ask, I nervously predicted Brexit. At the outset of the primaries, I predicted Trump would win them, though I wasn't at all confident. And then in the general, I finally trusted my intuition enough to bet money. I won $180.99 betting on Trump. Would have bet a lot more but the wife told me to stop. Here I was predicting Hillary's loss, back in October 2015: prodp.proboards.com/thread/35776/presidential-candidatesThat still doesn't make my intuition into evidence. It just means I have been a good guesser over the past year. Or lucky. We are were talking about how you "got over" the idea that only the living can be released and compensated. Tell me more about that. Do you care whether murderers are executed, imprisoned, fined or merely released with a warning? If so, then you care whether criminals face justice. I'm frankly surprised you would deny it, but then you do tend to say things at random. And yet you think executing pedophiles would be wrong. I can quote you if you make me.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 19, 2017 14:13:13 GMT -6
It was actually obvious Trump would win, if you heard the silence. Not the media.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2017 14:19:22 GMT -6
That still doesn't make my intuition into evidence. It just means I have been a good guesser over the past year. Moral arguments don't require evidence. I will grant that my guess is most Americans, if given the chance, would not compensate convicts who are "exonerated," but not exculpated, and released from prison. For the same reason people aren't compensated when bridges collapse, brush fires consume their homes or tsunami wash away their properties. Do you care whether murderers are executed, imprisoned, fined or merely released with a warning? If so, then you care whether criminals face justice. Another basic misunderstanding. Where I live, at any rate, we punish crimes, not criminals. That is why we have determinate sentencing in California. The punishments for crimes are defined in the penal code. I would vote against the death penalty for pedophiles, as a matter of law, but I would support such executions if that was the proscribed punishment for a 288.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2017 16:26:12 GMT -6
That still doesn't make my intuition into evidence. It just means I have been a good guesser over the past year. Moral arguments don't require evidence. That's why they're your favorite kind. I would guess the opposite. Americans awarded 1.7 million to a woman who spilled coffee on her lap. They'd award ten times that if she were wrongfully imprisoned. Then you care about justice for criminals. <dusts hands>
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 19, 2017 22:26:31 GMT -6
Americans awarded 1.7 million to a woman who spilled coffee on her lap. The feeling I got at the time was that no one would have awarded her anything, because the plaintiff was so stupid. They'd award ten times that if she were wrongfully imprisoned. Not if I made the case for the state. A jury shouldn't be punished when acting in good faith in the performance of its duties.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 19, 2017 23:33:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 19, 2017 23:59:11 GMT -6
They'd award ten times that if she were wrongfully imprisoned. Not if I made the case for the state. Quite right. They'd make it twenty times just to see the look on your face. Punishing the jury?? What? Do you think the compensation comes from the jury's pocket?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 20, 2017 8:47:31 GMT -6
Punishing the jury?? What? Do you think the compensation comes from the jury's pocket? Their's and every other taxpayer's.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Jan 21, 2017 0:03:28 GMT -6
I think it will come back in full circle. Its nice and fluffy to not have it when crime is low. But now with more heinous crimes many states are reexploring bringing it back. And we will bring it back. Well - I'd suggest spending cash on avoiding crimes in the first place rather than unnecessary legal murders, but that's just me What do you want to do pay people not to murder?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 1, 2017 18:52:00 GMT -6
Punishing the jury?? What? Do you think the compensation comes from the jury's pocket? Their's and every other taxpayer's. I'm not sure which world you live in, but it's definitely not the same as most people. Please tell me you've never been a legal professional or in an actual position of power.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 2, 2017 12:50:23 GMT -6
Please tell me you've never been a legal professional or in an actual position of power. People aren't compensated when bridges collapse or when buildings crumble during an earthquake. Why should they be compensated after valid, legal convictions?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 2, 2017 15:18:12 GMT -6
Because those convictions are no longer valid. The legal system works because appeals and overturned convictions exists, and there needs to be more of those.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Feb 2, 2017 23:10:36 GMT -6
Today marks 50 years since the last execution in Australia. Ronald Ryan executed for the shooting of a prison officer as he escaped. His fellow escapee has since been released.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 3, 2017 17:07:50 GMT -6
Because those convictions are no longer valid. The legal system works because appeals and overturned convictions exists, and there needs to be more of those. The legal system works even if they don't exist, as long as convicts got fair trials. Justice is not about absolute truth. Perfect justice is neither possible or desirable.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 3, 2017 18:19:04 GMT -6
Hey Fug, El Chapo is complaining of the prison conditions. Go help the poor guy !!!
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 4, 2017 15:49:22 GMT -6
Because those convictions are no longer valid. The legal system works because appeals and overturned convictions exists, and there needs to be more of those. The legal system works even if they don't exist, as long as convicts got fair trials. And then if they were wrongfully convicted the system, via another fair process, awards them damages. So what gives? Do you like the system or not?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 5, 2017 12:09:13 GMT -6
Because those convictions are no longer valid. The legal system works because appeals and overturned convictions exists, and there needs to be more of those. The legal system works even if they don't exist, as long as convicts got fair trials. Justice is not about absolute truth. Perfect justice is neither possible or desirable. That it's not possible, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Besides - if there are doubt, that doubt is to favor the defendant, not the prosecution. It's important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defense only has to create doubt in order to win. In other words: If we are to let go of the "perfect justice" idea, it needs to benefit the defendants - not the state.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 6, 2017 10:10:35 GMT -6
That it's not possible, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Yes, it does. At some point there has to be a time and/or an expense limit. Besides - if there are doubt, that doubt is to favor the defendant, not the prosecution. It's important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defense only has to create doubt in order to win. Not after conviction. The burden of proof moves to the convict, and he is not entitled to an appeal.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 6, 2017 10:11:58 GMT -6
And then if they were wrongfully convicted the system, via another fair process, awards them damages. They don't deserve damages, so how can awarding them damages be fair?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 6, 2017 10:52:44 GMT -6
And then if they were wrongfully convicted the system, via another fair process, awards them damages. They don't deserve damages, so how can awarding them damages be fair? Perfect fairness is neither possible nor desirable. So long as the plaintiffs secured damages via the valid, legal procedure, that's all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 6, 2017 18:12:21 GMT -6
That it's not possible, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Yes, it does. At some point there has to be a time and/or an expense limit. Besides - if there are doubt, that doubt is to favor the defendant, not the prosecution. It's important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defense only has to create doubt in order to win. Not after conviction. The burden of proof moves to the convict, and he is not entitled to an appeal. Yes, there should be a limit - but as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. And no, it does not. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution - and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 7, 2017 16:38:23 GMT -6
as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. The limit is reached when the electorate says it's been reached. It's a political question. Justice is nothing more than a compromise. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution It isn't post-conviction. The prosecution has done its job. and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. A convict is no longer a defendant. He's a convict. The state doesn't owe him, nor does it have to prove, anything. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man. No it isn't. Innocent men get killed every day. There is necessarily a practical limit to what is possible in criminal justice. Perfect justice is neither attainable or DESIRABLE.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 7, 2017 16:39:24 GMT -6
as the plaintiffs secured damages via the valid, legal procedure, that's all that matters. I would remove those procedures as a matter of law.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 7, 2017 17:27:51 GMT -6
as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. The limit is reached when the electorate says it's been reached. It's a political question. Justice is nothing more than a compromise. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution It isn't post-conviction. The prosecution has done its job. and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. A convict is no longer a defendant. He's a convict. The state doesn't owe him, nor does it have to prove, anything. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man. No it isn't. Innocent men get killed every day. There is necessarily a practical limit to what is possible in criminal justice. Perfect justice is neither attainable or DESIRABLE. I'll agree with you on one thing: Perfect justice is impossible. And in an imperfect world, the doubt has to favor the defendant. As long as there are appeals, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution - and the defendant is a defendant until all appeals have ended.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 7, 2017 17:30:11 GMT -6
as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. The limit is reached when the electorate says it's been reached. It's a political question. Justice is nothing more than a compromise. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution It isn't post-conviction. The prosecution has done its job. and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. A convict is no longer a defendant. He's a convict. The state doesn't owe him, nor does it have to prove, anything. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man. No it isn't. Innocent men get killed every day. There is necessarily a practical limit to what is possible in criminal justice. Perfect justice is neither attainable or DESIRABLE. But hey, if you want innocent men to die - wouldn't it be easier to just go nuts with a shotgun? The result would be more or less the same as what you keep championing.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 7, 2017 21:32:37 GMT -6
as the plaintiffs secured damages via the valid, legal procedure, that's all that matters. I would remove those procedures as a matter of law. It is neither possible nor desirable to make the state hostage to the whim of every WebForum Charlie with an opinion. That is why those procedures are protected by statute, and not subject to the vagaries of private individuals like yourself.
|
|