Bring Back Superman

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by Hobbit
First off, the reason truth serum and polygraphs aren't allowed in court right now have nothing to do about self-incrimination. It has everything to do about reliability. The reason prosecutors use them at all is to see if everything's on the level. Sometimes defendants undertake polygraph tests to prove their innocence. That's what we'd use it for.

The fifth ammendment is sacred. If it's violated to convict a guilty person, you can bet it would be violated to convict an innocent person. Leave it where it is.

Originally posted by musicman
I can offer some insight on polygraph testing. Years ago I worked at a place where money was stolen from the office. I was one of a handful of people who were in close proximity at the time, and thus was required to take a polygraph test.

I've never stolen a thing in my life. It's not that I'm Abraham Lincoln-I would just be shit-scared to do it. But after the thief confessed, I was told that I had flunked the test miserably. Apparently, even being asked if I stole the money upset me badly enough to affect the reading.

So I can tell you from personal experience, there's a reason polygraph results are inadmissable in court, and I'm damn glad of it.

I can respect both opinions. I had no idea that poly's and truth serum didn't work well. Both have been around the block for decades. Technology (PC's, Microwaves, Stereo's, Medical gear, Transportation, Weapons, Sensor/Scanner gear, etc) have all gotten better and better in the same amount of time. Cheaper, smaller, more reliable. I assumed that the polygraph and truth drugs had made the same strides. My whole point is premised on the "If I have a near perfect way to find the truth..........."

The fact is that the 5th Amendment is intended to deter the authorities from actual physical and mental abuse of suspects. I thought we'd found a way to get to the truth without resorting to torture.

I still defend the other points of my original post however.

Too bad about Newguy though. I thought we'd had a debate without flaming, idiots, or flaming idiots.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by pegwinn


Hi knucklehead. Who are you and what have you done with your life?

Far more than you have, and we could prove that a myriad of ways. I have promised some people here not to go into that. It also wouldn't be fair to you.

Have you ever done anything except hide an try to taunt?

Since you refer to "taunting" without proper understanding of the definition, let me remind you I illustrated that what you suggested was rhetoric about changing the law to go AGAINST the highest law in the land. If you refer to being corrected (when appropriate, I might add) as taunting, then go to m-w.com. It is an online dictionary. After that, read the Constitution.

Personally I don't care if you agree or not, that's all about democracy and debate.

Fine. You view it as democracy and debate. I will view it as a discussion about correcting the wrongs in America, our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

But obviously the only argument you can muster is an idiot macho diatribe (look it up).

:cof:

If you manage to pull your head out of the sand, explain in detail why I should change my mind.

Methinks tou dost call the kettle black....

OH yeah, IRT your comment "How about standing up for the Constitution first and being willing to take a bullet in the face for it?", do your research, you figure it out.
Hasta la C'ya

Do you even know what you are talking about? -Obviously not. If you did, you would realize the patriotism behined my statement and loyalty to country equivalent to the founders of this nation. All you have done is try to suggest subverting what so many died to give you in the first place.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by pegwinn


Hi knucklehead. Who are you and what have you done with your life? Have you ever done anything except hide an try to taunt?Personally I don't care if you agree or not, that's all about democracy and debate. But obviously the only argument you can muster is an idiot macho diatribe (look it up).

If you manage to pull your head out of the sand, explain in detail why I should change my mind.

OH yeah, IRT your comment "How about standing up for the Constitution first and being willing to take a bullet in the face for it?", do your research, you figure it out.
Hasta la C'ya

Don't be insulting our token constitutionalist. That's OUR job and we're a lot better at it than you. I know he gets a bit fanatical at times, but he makes some very valid points and never backs down. Either agree with him or ignore him. That's what I do, unless I can back my argument with quotes from the Constitution (and he usually wins the argument, anyway).

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Hobbit
Don't be insulting our token constitutionalist. That's OUR job and we're a lot better at it than you. I know he gets a bit fanatical at times, but he makes some very valid points and never backs down. Either agree with him or ignore him. That's what I do, unless I can back my argument with quotes from the Constitution (and he usually wins the argument, anyway).

For the record, my behavior in the past has been less than admirable to Hobbit and a few others, and for that I publicly apologize.

For a few racists and people who like flame wars and such, you can continue to expect it where only necessary.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Far more than you have, and we could prove that a myriad of ways. I have promised some people here not to go into that. It also wouldn't be fair to you.

Complete with delusions of grandeur! Oh yeah, you can't go into it because you promised. I call bullshit. Liar! Or you can prove me wrong by telling us who you are, Mr. Big Shot.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's on, Fuckstick!

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Complete with delusions of grandeur! Oh yeah, you can't go into it because you promised. I call bullshit. Liar! Or you can prove me wrong by telling us who you are, Mr. Big Shot.

Talk to Jim, idiot.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Talk to Jim, idiot.

Until jim contacts me on his own. I'll just assume you're lying.

You can't use your alleged status to try to intimidate others and then still keep it secret. You're trying to have it both ways, no? This really says a lot about your character. you know what it says? YOU SUCK.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Until jim contacts me on his own. I'll just assume you're lying.

You can't use your alleged status to try to intimidate others and then still keep it secret. You're trying to have it both ways, no? This really says a lot about your character. you know what it says? YOU SUCK.

Whatever.

Let it be known you ran from proof and truth once again.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Whatever.

Let it be known you ran from proof and truth once again.

Wow. How totally irrelevant to the discussion. Your huge character flaw was the topic. How do you feel about it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey dk. This thread isn't really about america. Should we move it.

I'll go find all the others and we can take card of the problem once and for all.

 

[Moi]

With regard to the Fifth Amendment, I think we should keep it. As for compelling testimony through science, I see no proof that either truth serum or polygraphs have any innate ability to 100% determine the voracity of someon's statements. Finally, as for the entire arguments about confidentiality for certain professions, I didagree that they are either proper or necessary.

If someone is stupid enough to trade his life after a hit of blow in lieu of going to prison so be it. Who cares? I'm pretty fed up with the criminals in this country getting away with their activities while the rest of us suffer.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by pegwinn

What does truth and fighting crime have in common? Not much. Did you know that our criminal courts don’t care about truth? They exclude actual factual evidence on technicalities....

NO EXCLUDING EVIDENCE: Remember, the new objective of the criminal court is to ascertain TRUTH. Guilt or Innocence will flow from the absolute facts of the matter. So, no evidence can be excluded. The judge has an obligation to ensure the jury receives the facts. IF evidence was obtained illegally then the judge must accept the evidence and initiate a separate prosecution. If it became a rock steady tenet of law that illegal searches would be prosecuted, there would be far less alleged corner cutting by law enforcement.

I think you misunderstand some things here.
For one, rules of evidence are there to protect us. They are there so that the long arm of the law is not extended further than the law allows.
Criminals have rights, too.
We all do.
Until PROVEN guilty in a court of law with the same standards applied to all.
The last part there is where our government falls short sometimes.

You go ahead and support illegal searches. And as a law abiding citizen I'll fight with ever last breath for the right not to be subjected to ILLEGAL search and seizure.

I really don't see your logic here, with all due respect.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I think you misunderstand some things here.
For one, rules of evidence are there to protect us. They are there so that the long arm of the law is not extended further than the law allows.
Criminals have rights, too.
We all do.
Until PROVEN guilty in a court of law with the same standards applied to all.
The last part there is where our government falls short sometimes.

You go ahead and support illegal searches. And as a law abiding citizen I'll fight with ever last breath for the right not to be subjected to ILLEGAL search and seizure.

I really don't see your logic here, with all due respect.

But usually they have the effect putting scum on the street. That's all. I' m not saying do away with them. But there are always unintended consequence. Dead body found in closet with no search warrant explicitly for a body. Or the warrant didn't have the dead person's name specified. Or maybe they just got the middle name wrong. IT's bullshit and libs don't care.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
But usually they have the effect putting scum on the street. That's all. I' m not saying do away with them. But there are always unintended consequence. Dead body found in closet with no search warrant explicitly for a body. Or the warrant didn't have the dead person's name specified. Or maybe they just got the middle name wrong. IT's bullshit and libs don't care.

Ah, I see. Yeah, that is a more extreme and disturbing example. The problem as I see it is that we can't have exceptions to rules based on the heinous nature of a crime. Like, "it should be okay to have an invalid/incorrect warrant or to illegaly search someone as long as you turn up a deady body in a closet,garage, etc."

I know that if my sister were murdered and found in a closet and the search was thrown out and the guy went free I would.... be pissed. In fact, I might go out and buy a gun and shoot the bastard between the eyes in a fit of despair and then spend the rest of my life in prison.

This is not a perfect world or a fair one. I don't know the answer.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Another reason individual handgun ownership should be considered part of civic duty and the justice system!

I wonder which happens more often, the innocent are protected or scumbags get off. I guess there'es no way of knowing. I know what it SEEMS like. But I know that's just anecdote and media.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Another reason individual handgun ownership should be considered part of civic duty and the justice system!

I wonder which happens more often, the innocent are protected or scumbags get off. I guess there'es no way of knowing. I know what it SEEMS like. But I know that's just anecdote and media.

The original intent and implementation of the jury system included a jury of PEERS, so the innocent would get off without being wrongfully convicted.

This system has been subverted and changed illegally by the courts.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Another reason individual handgun ownership should be considered part of civic duty and the justice system!

So you trust the average joe more than someone paid to know and enforce the law?

I certainly have my beefs with the court system, but I'll still take it any day over a lynch mob.

Some people in our country can't read, write, or tell you who the President of the United Sates is. And I want them taking the law into their own hands? I don't think so.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The original intent and implementation of the jury system included a jury of PEERS, so the innocent would get off without being wrongfully convicted.

This system has been subverted and changed illegally by the courts.

OK. but what about the overpersnicketiness of rules of evidence. Libs are using them to keep criminal, yet dem voting, thugs on the street. It bothers me. But I'm glad you know about juries.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
OK. but what about the overpersnicketiness of rules of evidence. Libs are using them to keep criminal, yet dem voting, thugs on the street. It bothers me. But I'm glad you know about juries.

Rules of evidence are irrelevant when the jury knows its job is to weigh:

1. Evidence
2. Validity of such a law the accused is supposed to have violated
3. Whether the law is applied correctly/fairly
4. The integrity of the accused.

Since all of this has been subverted, the jury THINKS its job is to determine the best evidence after they are weeded through by lawyers before beginning of trial.

Until we return to the original system, there can never be a fix.