Posted on 09/28/2007 4:44:37 PM PDT by Libloather
>>Proper DNA tests are as close to 100 percent as you’re going to get in this world and much more reliable than eyewitness testimony (even multiple eyewitness.)<<
Correct.
But close to 100% is still not 100% so the Police use the word “may” or “alleged”.
My niece and nephews are officers. They tell me the lingo.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
However, with the justice system working with a kiss to the perps, we conservatives are pretty tired.
We are a bunch of people letting out our anger on a website.
For those who are talking about hanging high and such, you are assuming that this means immediately with no trial. Those of us with like minds know that we mean “when found guilty”.
And the person who did this to a six-year-old, when proven guilty, does not deserve a slap on the wrist, a short jail term and a release to live in a neighborhood with other kids. But that seems to happen too much.
> However, with the justice system working with a kiss to the perps, we conservatives are pretty tired.
Then, with due respect ma’am, rather than gassing on a website, why don’t you and your tired conservative mates get off your collective arses and do something about it?
I did, and it changed my life forever.
And, having done so, it has refreshed my belief in “innocent until proven guilty” and has given me the right to take exception to people taking short-cuts around a very sensible legal safeguard.
And it has given me a very healthy dislike for the Bad Guys.
There's that pesky little needle, again! Making life durn near impossible for scumbags. The ACLU is outraged!
Isn’t it kind of creepy that both men suspected have names so similiar? Arender and Anders
A movie based on fact.
Tho I suppose to update the daying - it should be Rule 308......
EIther way - it worked. The social ‘fallout’ was generated by the mass media of the time.
For those who wonder
Rule 303 made famous by Harry "Breaker" Morant and Englishman living in Australia at the start of the 20th century who enlisted in the Australian Armed Forces to help the British fight a war with the Boer's in South Africa.
British policy to deal with the Boer "commando's" was to tell their men that any Boer found wearing khaki (the British uniform had changed by this time no more Red Coats) could be shot on sight to deter the Boer's from pretending to be British soldiers.
Morant and his company while out to avenge the death of a close friend of his by Boer commando's came across a group who they believed had killed Morants friend, some of whom were dressed in the remants of British uniform (just a jacktet top)
Morant set up a fireing squad and had the men shot dead with out any hearing. After the peace was declared Morant and two others were brought before a British Military court charged with murder.
The Head of the Brisih Army in South Africa sent his aid to the trial and had him commit purjury by denying any order to Kill Boer prisoners had been given.
Atone point Morant was asked by the court under what rule or right did he kill the men and he answered that he shot them under rule 303 meaning the the Lee Enfield .303 rifle issued at the time.
His meaning being that he shot them beacuse he had the means to do so at hand and that was all the authority he needed. Several things to note: He was charged AFTER the fighting was over He was sold out by his command (lie about orders) The more things change, the more they stay the same - Perhaps this part of the thread could be copied over to some of the Iraq war threads.........
Maybe you didn’t understand my post. I simply turned around what you said. Pretty basic stuff. Doesn’t mean I ACTUALLY believe you stand up for child rapists.
You responded with a certain tone, you get that in return.
Also, you misread the facts presented. I’m sure you were screaming ‘due process’ when Couey told investigators where Jessica Lunsford’s body was. “Well, anyone could know that and have had her hair and blood in his apartment!”
Again, Mr. Self-Righteous, you ignore the fact that on a MESSAGE BOARD, people are allowed to have whatever judgments they wish regarding criminal cases. Because you have not seen the multitude of posts where I defend the possibly innocent in cases that require more investigation or the idea that mere possession of child pornography should NOT be a crime (as it is too easy to plant) does not mean that I’m an idiot and unable to see what’s going on in a specific case.
And isn’t it odd that you said “pornography” and not “CHILD pornography” which is what’s in question here. That makes me believe you are disingenuous or more interested in reflexively playing the role you have set for yourself.
Due process is for those involved. I can sit at my computer and believe someone to be guilty and typically be right just as I was in the case Couey, the moron who killed Carly Bruscia, Jayson Williams (though he walked on lesser charges,) OJ Simpson (again, he walked as ‘due process’ didn’t work quite so well) and many, MANY other cases where the guilt of the person was pretty clear once the evidence started coming in.
Due process, so you know, is to ensure fairness in the result, not to TRULY assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the circumstances. That’s for the jury and the judge. Not for me at home, DieHard.
If you think they planted DNA or it came from the mother’s underwear rather from the little girl’s body or clothes, why not make that case? If you don’t have any evidence for that, the burden is really on you.
As for any punishment, it is ASSUMED that it would happen after a trial. If they can show a massive conspiracy to convict this dude, then let them and I will state that I was wrong. Otherwise, shove off with your insincere moral outrage at online posts about a criminal case.
However, with the justice system working with a kiss to the perps, we conservatives are pretty tired.
We are a bunch of people letting out our anger on a website.
For those who are talking about hanging high and such, you are assuming that this means immediately with no trial. Those of us with like minds know that we mean “when found guilty”.
Thanks for stating some of my case. I did my own post because DieHard was such an ass about things but it is pretty clear that we all mean AFTER trial and people on a website do not have to hew to standards of due process, which is merely in place to ensure the State must prove its case against the accused not a universal right of the accused to be believed innocent UNTIL some ‘magic’ crossover point in the trial where we are allowed to believe he or she is guilty.
I see DNA (and you can get results like the odds of a match being 1-in-10 billion or thereabouts, which to me means a certain match,) child pornography, proximity to the crime and other issues contributing to a belief that the guy is guilty.
It’s funny because as a poster I’m probably known as the opposite of what DieHard suggests. Perhaps he’s more interested in railing against something because he personally experienced the criminal justice system or did work in defending the wrongly accused.
Hey Joe! Your right about that. This is a story that really makes me want to get hands on this creep and let real justice be done.
Your horse is pretty high and it makes you look as if you are defending perps. NO one here is suggesting forgoing due process and it would serve you well, if you want to have conversations on this website to stop presuming what posters are saying here.
Not a single innocent person should be punished but if more of the perps got proper justice from the Justice system, then the tired Conservatives wouldn’t think of getting them after trial.
Sorry FRiend, I want my world back. I want my kids to be able to ride bikes around the block without having the perps (per our sexual defenders list) watching them.
Your due respect is pretty shallow in my neighborhood with six of these creeps living within 3 miles from me. One woman and one man prosecuted for assaulting children less than five.
I’m too busy protecting my girls to do anything for them.
Well said!
No, it's "Wayne."
Capital punishment does deter crime. The person executed will not do it again.
Becky
> NO one here is suggesting forgoing due process and it would serve you well, if you want to have conversations on this website to stop presuming what posters are saying here.
Ma’am, I beg to differ: I suggest you go back and re-read the thread carefully. More than quite a few posters suggest taking measures that forego due process.
For example, post #3: probably looks familiar because it should. In it you suggested the suspect be hanged “by the scrotum.” To the best of my knowledge, with or without a trial, not even in Texas would playing out that particular punitive fantasy form any part of “Due Process”.
I note also from this thread that this, apparently, isn’t the first suspect in this case, neither is it the first one where people have called for summary Justice.
So when you write:
> NO one here is suggesting forgoing due process and it would serve you well...
you may as well save your sanctimony: it is hollow and does you no credit.
I’m not singling you out in particular, nor am I trying to pick on you. However, you chose to advise me I was making presumptions, and I felt it only fair to point out that they weren’t presumptions but facts.
I’ve said it before and it bears repeating: people LAUGH at Conservatives because some folk have this inescapable urge to write twoddle that makes the rest of us look like ignorant red-necks. From there it becomes much too easy for Liberals to shoot down nearly any of our reasoned arguments: they have all the ammunition they need because we have handed it to them.
Words from our own Discussion Forums, from Threads of our own making. It doesn’t even require cleverness from their part, or hardly any effort.
So why don’t we all go drink hemlock instead? Seems like a much faster way to destroy Conservatism and would avoid the embarassment of us handing to the Liberals the arguments against our Credibility that they aren’t smart enough to think up by themselves.
“So the original person of interest, the womans boyfried, wasn’t the guy so many here was willing to hang.”
easy mistake to make.
The guy had kiddy porn on his computer.
I’ve been trying to muster up pity for him but haven’t managed to yet.
> Again, Mr. Self-Righteous, you ignore the fact that on a MESSAGE BOARD, people are allowed to have whatever judgments they wish regarding criminal cases.
Sure you are. Without a doubt — and if you want to post twaddle that, too, is your prerogative. And if that twaddle makes Conservative values look silly, I reserve the right to object.
> Due process, so you know, is to ensure fairness in the result, not to TRULY assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the circumstances. That’s for the jury and the judge. Not for me at home, DieHard.
Thanks for the law lesson: I am well aware of Due Process.
I guess you’ve identified a specific weakness in what passes for “Due Process” wherever you are at home, then, Skywalk.
Some jurisdictions, such as the one I live in, afford automatic name suppression for the accused, as a matter of Due Process, and will prevent the media from publishing any information that may identify the accused, until either the suppression order is lifted or, more often, the court finds Guilty.
The Courts would also seek to suppress discussion of the case in forums such as this.
The Courts here do this to protect the *reputation* of the person who stands accused, just on the off-chance they are found not-guilty. Quite aside from seeking to ensure a fair trial.
In all, a much more just outcome.
So, for example, you have cited OJ Simpson: in the jurisdiction we live in, we would never have known his name or even his occupation or reputation as a famous sportsman. Sure, there would be speculation as to who it actually is, but nothing that could stick.
And had this information been leaked irretrievably, the trial would probably have been aborted, paving the way for civil damages to be sought by OJ Simpson, for harming his reputation. This, as well as and the full wrath of the Courts to be brought to bear on those who leaked it.
Under these circumstances, the Jury would have had a much better opportunity of formulating an intelligent verdict, and it is probable that a finding of Guilt would have been more achievable.
In all, a much better result than the dog’s breakfast that passed for “Due Process” over there in the OJ Simpson case.
Ours isn’t a perfect system: there are ways for suppressed information to be leaked, and it is often viewed as a joke by some. And yes, it does infringe on the Public’s right to know: in our case, this is not viewed as an absolute right.
On balance, it is at least a good attempt at Due Process.
You write further:
> If you don’t have any evidence for that, the burden is really on you.
It’s actually not, unless I am sitting in France. And *that* is one of the beauties of Due Proces.
> If they can show a massive conspiracy to convict this dude, then let them and I will state that I was wrong.
As you may be aware, it wouldn’t be the first time this happened in the US. Or, for that matter, in the jurisdiction in which I live. You are surely not so credulous as to believe that this *never* happens, ay.
> Otherwise, shove off...
You first.
Understanding that you assume that those with gross punishment befitting a gross crime mean lynch mob or vigilante justice, you assume a prejudice that cannot be overcome. Pity, but you have the right to assume just as you have the right to be an “a” because of it.
Continue to champion for the molester and then explain your way out of it and many here will make assumptions about you too.
> Continue to champion for the molester and then explain your way out of it and many here will make assumptions about you too.
That sounds vaguely like a threat, but I’ll ignore it because it lacks conviction.
Assuming, then, that you are not in favor of lynch law and that you do support Due Process, then. In Post #72 you write:
>> Sorry FRiend, I want my world back. I want my kids to be able to ride bikes around the block without having the perps (per our sexual defenders list) watching them.
There really is only one way that can ever happen, and it’s not by wishing bad things on people whom the cops happen to arrest as mere suspects. That goes 0% the way toward making any meaningful changes.
The only way anyone can “get their world back” is by taking responsibility for delivering some of the outcomes they want in the Society that they live in. The Police can’t do more than what they are doing, neither can the Courts, neither can the Politicians. No amount of law changes or tougher sentencing will do it either. And even if Fred gets in, he’ll be in the White House for either four or eight years, and not even *he* will be able to “give you your world back.”
The average citizen has the responsibility to get involved, and we have many legal mechanisms to do so.
Things got the way that they are today because, little by little, the average citizen became disengaged, ceaced to become involved, stopped opposing the Bad Guys, and left it to the Professionals. It was a gradual erosion. And it will take gradual, incremental steps to shift things back the way they once were.
The Bad Guys do not necessarily get to win, it is not inevitable. But it will happen by default if the average citizen does nothing. You see, the Bad Guys are all Volunteers: nobody has “made” them become Bad Guys, they do it for the joy of it. And, sometimes they make money at it or gain other benefits, on the side. But, by-and-large, if offered a well-paid honest living or the opportunity to be a Bad Guy, they will Volunteer to be a Bad Guy.
To fix that, it is as simple as the average citizen Volunteering to be the Good Guy. Not necessarily just being the Nice Guy, but going that one vital step further: the one that proactively confronts the Bad Guy and crime head-on.
Skywalk has speculated in Post #70:
>> It’s funny because as a poster I’m probably known as the opposite of what DieHard suggests. Perhaps he’s more interested in railing against something because he personally experienced the criminal justice system or did work in defending the wrongly accused.
Nice guess, close but not quite. I am a stickler for Due Process because I like to see Justice done. I don’t like seeing Bad Guys wiggle off the hook on technicalities. Equally, I don’t like to see the Good Guys go to gaol due to a screw-ups in Due Process — this happens, far too regularly for my liking. And I don’t like to see the Good Guys have their reputations shredded during a trial-by-media only to find that they weren’t guilty after all. And I don’t like The System to get a free walk when it fails and lets us all down: because The System does not fail — individuals within The System fail, and aren’t often held to account when they should be.
To me, that sounds like a fair and healthy way to view things.
Skywalk is right in that personal experience *did* catalyze my viewpoints expressed in this thread, almost exactly three years ago today. Crime hit just a bit too close to home, close enough to get my attention and change my world view.
And close enough to make me do something about it.
Conservative websites are great, but like I said they can do Conservatism alot of harm if what we post to them provides ready ammunition to the Liberals to use against us. Sometimes we say things on our Conservative websites as if we were talking in the privacy of our own homes, but instead we are actually shouting all over the Internet, where anything that is posted can be lifted verbatim, and quoted either in-or-out of context: depending upon what they want to use it for. And they can do this forever: it becomes a matter of permanent public record. When this happens, as Conservatives we have done this to ourselves: it is a self-inflicted injury and, unfortunately, is usually punished as such.
So, there you have it, in bollix-aching detail. If that makes me an @$$hole for pointing this out, fine: I get called much worse things on the street by people of all different political persuasions. It does not bother in the slightest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.