Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Maybe if everyone had to prove their innocence? That would send a powerful message to everyone in society, you are are suspects for everything unless you can prove you didn't do what we said you did.
Maybe if everyone had to prove their innocence? That would send a powerful message to everyone in society, you are are suspects for everything unless you can prove you didn't do what we said you did.
WE presume you're innocent...we just don't know exactly what you're innocent of until we put you on trial.
Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.
State sanctioned murder remains murder, and too many innocent people have been killed by the state after being wrongfully convicted of murder.
If Charles Manson ever gets paroled, I hope he moves to your neighborhood and not mine.
I see in the news some states are considering doing away with the death penalty due to the costs involved. It seems it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for the remainder of their life. What a situation we have worked ourselves into. The statement by itself smacks of lunacy.
Why is it so expensive to put a convicted killer to death as his punishment for taking innocent lives?
It's the lawyers, judges and the bleeding heart liberals. Some people can't handle the idea of killing a killer, but they ignore the victims. The lawyers keep the appeals ongoing to line their pockets. Lawyers charge by the hour to represent the human predator and appeal after appeal insures them of a continuous paycheck paid by us hard working, law abiding taxpayers. We also pay for the prosecutors to continue returning to court to present the case against the killers. The judges have no backbone, think they're being fair, ignoring the victims.
Liberals who support killers may be winning. Those who care more for money than justice may be winning.
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.
There are still many cases where there is no DNA evidence. People who are killed by by guns during robberies or other instances are a prime example. In many of these cases, it still comes down to eye witness testimony. And we have seen over and over how eye witnesses have been wrong. They are certain of what they saw and whom they saw, but it turns out to be the wrong person. Every case is not solved by CSI.
My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.
My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.
Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.
My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.
Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.
No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.
My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.
Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.
No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.
My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.
Maybe not overly cynical, but unless and until a perfect justice system is found, we have to work with what we have. You think the 99.9% probable dad, in the paternity example, is "set up"? Could be, but is that realistically probable?
No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.
My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.
Maybe not overly cynical, but unless and until a perfect justice system is found, we have to work with what we have. You think the 99.9% probable dad, in the paternity example, is "set up"? Could be, but is that realistically probable?
I don't have a problem with the paternity DNA testing, it's a genetic analysis and can identify parents, no problem. It's just we leave traces of our DNA everywhere. You go to the hairdresser for a haircut, there's your DNA all over the floor. I'm not trying to scaremonger, just point out that in terms of it being circumstantial evidence (which is far better than eyewitness evidence) it has its natural limitations. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great breakthrough (read Joseph Wambaugh's "The Blooding") and it's been used to great effect but it still can't prove someone killed someone beyond any doubt at all. I know it's a counsel of perfection but since there is an alternative to execution then until we develop the ability to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all then for me execution is off the table.
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.
What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?
What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?
I don't know, to be perfectly frank. But I do know this, there are so many variables at work from the criminal act to the eventual decision by the jury that, looking at the system in totality, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the death penalty is a good idea. All it takes is sloppy police work, a lazy prosecutor, an inexperienced defence lawyer, a couple of influential jurors, a judge not paying attention to the evidence and bingo, someone who is innocent is convicted. I just don't trust the criminal justice system that much that I would be comfortable with the death penalty.
Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...
Folks, let's face it, nothing, no system is perfect. But we take the best we got and accept it. Sometimes an innocent will be killed. I say that is rare. I was glad to see the likes of Ted Bundy meet his maker. Sometimes a Sunday school teacher is killed on the highway driving to church. But we don't stop driving. An innocent soldier can be killed by friendly fire, but we still call out the troops when there is a need.
Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...
It ain't murder. Murder is what the bad guy does for personal gain. What the government does is punishment to serve it's citizens.
Those who are against capital punishment, period, will dig up all excuses they can and that's fine, as we have free speech and they are entitled to their opinion. But they should be honest in their arguments. I say human predators are so evil they deserve to be removed from society and that don't mean have society work to earn money to pay for their housing, medical care, dental care, education, food, clothing, recreation, porno books and sex change operations. Why not calculate the cost to keep a murderer alive for 25 years, then just put the slug to death and give the money that is saved to the victim? Now that makes more sense and is more fair.