The American Courts have went Crazy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by shintao, Nov 23, 2010.

  1. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    The legal arguments behind where terrorists are tried (military, civil,criminal, international) is a perfect example of the American courts going crazy. BUT I want to discuss a different craziness in the American courts, and "limit" the debate to the two plea-bargains below. There are several pleas by the way, and these two strike me as crazy for an American court to even address. And there are a host of other court accepted acts that are really way out there. So for this debate, The Alford Plea and The Alternative Plea will be addressed. And by the way, these are found in political debate, just as what is occurring with terrorists.

    =========
    Alford plea (also referred to as Alford guilty plea) and Alford doctrine in the law of the United States is a guilty plea in criminal court, where the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence.Under the Alford plea the defendant admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Bibas argues, "These procedures may be constitutional and efficient, but they undermine key values served by admissions of guilt in open court. They undermine the procedural values of accuracy and public confidence in accuracy and fairness, by convicting innocent defendants and creating the perception that innocent defendants are being pressured into pleading guilty. More basically, they allow guilty defendants to avoid accepting
    responsibility for their wrongs."

    Alford plea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Alternative pleading permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.

    A pleading in the alternative sets forth multiple claims or defenses either hypothetically or alternatively, such that if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.

    example: "Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog." Normally such arguments would seem to cancel each other on their face, however, legally "even if" and "anyway" clauses need not be argued; mutually exclusive defenses can be advanced without excuses for their relationship to each other. Of course jurists might be influenced by dual defenses such as "my dog was tied up" and "I don't have a dog", but this must be weighed against the fact that defenses may not be allowed if they are introduced too late.

    Alternative pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2010
  2. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    You have went stupid, again, shitao.
     
  3. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    I 'have went' to unsubscribe immediately after this post.
     
  4. mdn2000
    Offline

    mdn2000 BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,766
    Thanks Received:
    278
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    conservative hell california
    Ratings:
    +278
    Great observation, I imagine this thread will be hot a long time, if it finds its way to "law and Justice"
     
  5. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    Translation: I am too dumb to debate anything legal, but start a thread on why buttons fall off my teddy bear.
     
  6. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Key words of advice for the fail that is shitao:

    Learn English. Learn logic. Learn.
     
  7. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    I don't tend to run all over the board posting, but to make my political point for why this is here.

    Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms defines the term Alford plea as: "A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court. The plea is commonly used in local and state courts in the United States." wiki
     
  8. shintao
    Offline

    shintao Take Down ~ Tap Out

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,231
    Thanks Received:
    320
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +339
    Did I piss in your cereal bowl again? Clearly, whatever your problem is, it is a personal one. What I enjoy about pissing you off, is you are the only one pissed off. I myself am enjoying some rock & roll playing in the background, and you are not even a thought in my mind.:eusa_angel:
     
  9. The Infidel
    Offline

    The Infidel EVIL CONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    17,252
    Thanks Received:
    3,170
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AMERITOPIA
    Ratings:
    +3,173
    This is a PERFECT example of why terrorists should NOT be tried in civilian courts.

    They are terrorists, and should fall under military jurisdiction.

    Then all this silly mumbo jumbo is just that.... silly mumbo jumbo. :eusa_hand:
     
  10. Liability
    Offline

    Liability Locked Account. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    35,447
    Thanks Received:
    5,049
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Mansion in Ravi's Head
    Ratings:
    +5,064
    Shitao:

    You lack the ability to piss in my cereal and you lack the capacity to piss me off. I consider you a joke. Nothing more. And when I saw your functional illiteracy on display, I decided to tweak you over it. Your thin skin does the rest.

    10 to 1 you still don't know what you wrote that is so ignorant.
     

Share This Page