OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 11:25:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Casey Anthony Not Guilty  (Read 7948 times) Average Rating: 3
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« on: July 05, 2011, 02:29:28 PM »

Wow...for those who care, gotta love the American justice system.......

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2011, 02:59:10 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
IsmiLiora
Chronic Exaggerator
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: One step closer!
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (GOA)
Posts: 3,434


Back by unpopular demand.


« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2011, 03:00:25 PM »

Any news on whether Nancy Grace has exploded yet?
Logged

She's touring the facility/and picking up slack.
--
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecclesiastes 1:18
--
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view --
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right
GTAsoldier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: God knows what lives in me in place of me....
Posts: 443


GTAsoldier
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2011, 03:04:13 PM »

Quote
(CNN) -- Casey Anthony was acquitted Tuesday of first-degree murder and the other most serious charges against her in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter.

But the jury convicted her on four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to law enforcement officers.

As the verdict was read, Casey Anthony cried from her seat in the courtroom, breathing deeply as she looked forward. She then hugged her defense attorney Jose Baez and other members of her defense team.

Her father, George Anthony, meanwhile, showed no visible reaction from his seat in the back of the courtroom.

Orange County Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. set sentencing at 9 a.m. Thursday for Casey Anthony. She faces up to a year in jail on each of the charges she lied to police.

The verdict was reached by the seven-woman, five-man jury after deliberating for less than 11 hours in a trial that stretched to more than six weeks and featured allegations of sexual abuse, questions regarding Casey Anthony's competence and various theories on what happened to 2-year-old Caylee.

The rest of the article found here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/05/florida.casey.anthony.trial/index.html?iphonefb

Well, I'm an American myself. I haven't followed the trial at all (until the past couple of weeks). I just wanted to hear the verdict on Casey. Now she's been found not guilty on murder and manslaughter, but guilty for providing false information to the authorities in Florida. Had she been found guilty on all the counts, she would have received life in prison, or worse...the death penalty.

Thank God I live in a country were under the law we:
  • enter a courtroom innocent until proven guilty [apparently a bulk of my fellow countrymen and women haven't got that message clearly after the Michael Jackson (memory eternal) and OJ Simpson cases]
  • have the rights to a fair and free trial

Granted, our justice system is far from perfect, but it's somewhat better than other systems from other countries where they'd decree you guilty until proven innocent or (God forbid) sentence or execute you when accused of a crime.

At least it's all over now. Case closed.

Any news on whether Nancy Grace has exploded yet?

LOL laugh
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 03:07:29 PM by GTAsoldier » Logged

God be merciful to us sinners.

Quote from: IoanC
the best way of conveying God's love to people is through your own presence and deeds.
No longer posting on this forum. Thanks to all the helpful people who inspired me. God bless.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,472



« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2011, 03:08:09 PM »

Precedent for post-birth abortion to be legalized?

Remember, in the American court system you are innocent until proven broke.  She obviously had some good financial sponsors.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2011, 03:12:45 PM »

Any news on whether Nancy Grace has exploded yet?

We can't be that lucky.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2011, 03:14:06 PM »

Since I hide under a rock, I knew nothing of this case till this weekend when my grandmother told me about it for an hour.

I asked the charges: She said murder, AGGRAVATED manslaughter, the other stuff.

I said, she will get a no guilty verdict. Ended up makes wagers up to $150.

I won.

Florida should have went with involuntary manslaughter. Even if the jury believed her actions lead to the child's death, murder certainly was off the table, but aggravated manslaughter speaks to more than just taking a life, but to a state of mind and perhaps a pattern of behavior.

Knew only what Grandma and the other yentas told me.

Shudda thought I could have wagered online. According Geraldo, the odds were high.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 03:15:41 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,198


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2011, 03:40:38 PM »

My wife is literally crying right now. She is not a fan of Casey Anthony at all.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2011, 03:42:13 PM »

Lets hope she commits another crime, like OJ and ends up where she belongs...

You get away with a crime once, you're probably delusional enough to believe you can do it again.

Our justice system is so messed up...
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 03:43:50 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2011, 03:45:59 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2011, 03:49:58 PM »

Quote
Insert Quote
Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Very true. However this does prove we really need to get our house in order badly.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2011, 03:52:04 PM »

I have to admit, I haven't followed this case basically at all.  It doesn't affect me in any way - I do not know any of the involved, I don't live in her community or even in Florida, and I have never even been to Florida.  However, I wonder why people think they know better than the jury whether or not she is guilty?  Certainly her behavior, from what I understand, was not particularly how I would have probably acted after finding my child was missing, but that doesn't mean she wasn't affected by it - people act in all sorts of unusual ways when they get news they don't think they can deal with.  Frankly, I don't know why people who weren't in the courtroom, and haven't (I should hope) spent hours and hours considering the case, and haven't had access to the evidence the way the jury has, think they can decide better than the jury.  Is it that you think you are smarter than the jury?

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2011, 04:00:10 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

That's an ugly response, kiddo. 

So much for the hospital for soul approach.

FRY THE &IATCH...eh?
Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2011, 04:01:05 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2011, 04:01:42 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

That's an ugly response, kiddo. 

So much for the hospital for soul approach.

FRY THE &IATCH...eh?

This is just as ugly, Mary, and you should know better.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
GTAsoldier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: God knows what lives in me in place of me....
Posts: 443


GTAsoldier
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2011, 04:03:39 PM »

Lets hope she commits another crime, like OJ and ends up where she belongs...

That's a very malicious statement, don't you think?  Shocked
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 04:04:47 PM by GTAsoldier » Logged

God be merciful to us sinners.

Quote from: IoanC
the best way of conveying God's love to people is through your own presence and deeds.
No longer posting on this forum. Thanks to all the helpful people who inspired me. God bless.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2011, 04:08:05 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.

Implied point amplified. Thanks.

I recommend to everyone to fast from "news" in general. It is amazing how much garbage I walked around with in my head that I could absolutely nothing about and that impotence created a general sense of anger and bitterness toward situations I could actually impact and the world in general.

If the whole world seems beyond hope, what's the point? People were happier when problems they knew about could be managed to some degree with their effort.

FWIW.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2011, 04:09:18 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

Family obfuscated the facts.  Defense created reasonable doubt.  Many child killers are held accountable for their actions ... well, until Frontline showed cases of people falsely convicted of child abuse when the child died as a result of undiagnosed and unexamined underlying medical conditions.

Quote
Often, authorities had little to go on other than autopsy findings. Many of the doctors who conducted post-mortem examinations failed to consult specialists in childhood injuries or ailments, or to thoroughly review medical records that could have affected their conclusions. In several cases, forensic pathologists worked so closely with authorities, they effectively became agents of law enforcement, rather than objective arbiters of scientific evidence.

source

Casey Anthony's family didn't want the State prying around their personal business even as they endured 3 years of around the clock media spotlight.  A family of sociopaths - they stuck together rather than selling each other out.  We will never know what happened to Caylee Anthony.   Sad  Huh  Sad  May the Lord have Mercy on her.

Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2011, 04:10:27 PM »

**tries to stuff the worms back in the can**
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2011, 04:18:35 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

That's an ugly response, kiddo. 

So much for the hospital for soul approach.

FRY THE &IATCH...eh?



This is just as ugly, Mary, and you should know better.

Yes.  I had come back to change it but perhaps I should leave it as evidence of my own wrongdoing.

However, I stopped watching the trial ages ago because it was clear that there was not enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder.  The prosecution overestimated themselves...and the evidence.

Now that the the trial is at an end and we've got a verdict, I will say that I do not believe that the woman did in fact murder her daughter in cold blood.

But to compare this tragedy to a hapless marriage is just stupid, I think.
Logged

GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2011, 04:19:18 PM »

A not proven verdict may have been more appropriate than not guilty, but generally speaking, justice was done. The prosecution's case was weak, the evidence just wasn't there to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor was being irresponsible in even taking this case to trial, he should be personally billed the expenses the state wasted prosecuting this case. No witnesses and the only forensic evidence available was based on the undeveloped and only marginally scientific field of analyzing smell. The prosecutor was hoping to get a conviction by character assassination, anyone who's graduated from elementary school should know that an ad hominem is not sufficient basis for a convincing argument. The only thing this trial has demonstrated is the incompetence and bias of Florida's prosecutors.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2011, 04:22:53 PM »

The prosecutor was hoping to get a conviction by character assassination, anyone who's graduated from elementary school should know that an ad hominem is not sufficient basis for a convincing argument.

Whatever, know-it-all . . . //:=|
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
GTAsoldier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: God knows what lives in me in place of me....
Posts: 443


GTAsoldier
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2011, 04:23:26 PM »

I agree with GiC and maria.

A not proven verdict may have been more appropriate than not guilty, but generally speaking, justice was done. The prosecution's case was weak, the evidence just wasn't there to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor was being irresponsible in even taking this case to trial, he should be personally billed the expenses the state wasted prosecuting this case. No witnesses and the only forensic evidence available was based on the undeveloped and only marginally scientific field of analyzing smell. The prosecutor was hoping to get a conviction by character assassination, anyone who's graduated from elementary school should know that an ad hominem is not sufficient basis for a convincing argument. The only thing this trial has demonstrated is the incompetence and bias of Florida's prosecutors.

it was clear that there was not enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder.  The prosecution overestimated themselves...and the evidence.

Now that the the trial is at an end and we've got a verdict, I will say that I do not believe that the woman did in fact murder her daughter in cold blood.

But to compare this tragedy to a hapless marriage is just stupid, I think.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 04:24:46 PM by GTAsoldier » Logged

God be merciful to us sinners.

Quote from: IoanC
the best way of conveying God's love to people is through your own presence and deeds.
No longer posting on this forum. Thanks to all the helpful people who inspired me. God bless.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2011, 04:26:46 PM »

Well, there is another good thing out of this...I can continue to wait with baited breath, uninterrupted, for the start of the English Premier League again.  laugh

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2011, 04:26:57 PM »

I have to admit, I haven't followed this case basically at all.  It doesn't affect me in any way - I do not know any of the involved, I don't live in her community or even in Florida, and I have never even been to Florida.  However, I wonder why people think they know better than the jury whether or not she is guilty?  Certainly her behavior, from what I understand, was not particularly how I would have probably acted after finding my child was missing, but that doesn't mean she wasn't affected by it - people act in all sorts of unusual ways when they get news they don't think they can deal with.  Frankly, I don't know why people who weren't in the courtroom, and haven't (I should hope) spent hours and hours considering the case, and haven't had access to the evidence the way the jury has, think they can decide better than the jury.  Is it that you think you are smarter than the jury?

The authorities were out saying how we have to respect the jury's verdict, and the system.

No, we do not.

It's not the first jury verdict that turned out to let the guilty free (or condemned the innocent, e.g. Leo Frank). Unfortunately, with the mandate that "we have to respect the jury's verdict," it won't be the last I'm afraid.

I avoided this trial as much as possible, as I did OJ's.  But the commentary from those who watched every moment kept on harping on questions I formed from the first I heard of it-chiefly not contacting authorities for 30 days then coming up with a bewildering array of stories of what happened.  One story wasn't enough?

For myself, I'm glad its over.  The idea of people knocking over each other to get in the courtroom and other obsessive behavior disgusts me.  but the distaste that the little girl didn't get justice and her blood cries out to heaven won't go away.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2011, 04:29:54 PM »

No offense to anyone upset by this verdict, but I'm so glad that our legal system is based on proving a case and not on how frothy-mou­thed Nancy Graces and others FEEL.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
GTAsoldier
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: God knows what lives in me in place of me....
Posts: 443


GTAsoldier
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2011, 04:30:46 PM »

No offense to anyone upset by this verdict, but I'm so glad that our legal system is based on proving a case and not on how frothy-mou­thed Nancy Graces and others FEEL.

^ Amen.
Logged

God be merciful to us sinners.

Quote from: IoanC
the best way of conveying God's love to people is through your own presence and deeds.
No longer posting on this forum. Thanks to all the helpful people who inspired me. God bless.
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 613


« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2011, 04:35:33 PM »

A not proven verdict may have been more appropriate than not guilty, but generally speaking, justice was done. The prosecution's case was weak, the evidence just wasn't there to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor was being irresponsible in even taking this case to trial, he should be personally billed the expenses the state wasted prosecuting this case. No witnesses and the only forensic evidence available was based on the undeveloped and only marginally scientific field of analyzing smell. The prosecutor was hoping to get a conviction by character assassination, anyone who's graduated from elementary school should know that an ad hominem is not sufficient basis for a convincing argument. The only thing this trial has demonstrated is the incompetence and bias of Florida's prosecutors.

True.  However, there was no DNA evidence against Scott Peterson either.  There was tons of media interest in his case at the time.  You don't need DNA to convict; this isn't television.  However, in the end, no one ever knows what a jury will decide.  The prosecution had a good case; but the defense showed enough to give reasonable doubt.  All that's needed.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2011, 04:39:27 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

That's an ugly response, kiddo. 

So much for the hospital for soul approach.

FRY THE &IATCH...eh?



This is just as ugly, Mary, and you should know better.

Yes.  I had come back to change it but perhaps I should leave it as evidence of my own wrongdoing.

However, I stopped watching the trial ages ago because it was clear that there was not enough evidence to convict her of first degree murder.  The prosecution overestimated themselves...and the evidence.

Now that the the trial is at an end and we've got a verdict, I will say that I do not believe that the woman did in fact murder her daughter in cold blood.

But to compare this tragedy to a hapless marriage is just stupid, I think.
Quote
On October 25, 1994, Smith initially reported to police that she had been carjacked by a black man who drove away with her sons still in the car. Smith made tearful pleas on television for the rescue and return of her children. A Usenet chain letter circulated in the following days, asking Internet users to be on the lookout for the vehicle. However, following an intensive, heavily publicized investigation and a nationwide search, Smith confessed nine days later on November 3 to letting her 1990 Mazda Protegé roll into nearby John D. Long Lake, drowning her children inside. Her alleged motive for the deaths — to dispose of her children so that she might have a relationship with a wealthy local man who had no interest in a "ready-made" family — was met with widely-held contempt and revulsion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Smith#The_case

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2011, 04:41:02 PM »

No offense to anyone upset by this verdict, but I'm so glad that our legal system is based on proving a case and not on how frothy-mou­thed Nancy Graces and others FEEL.

^ Amen.
Amen indeed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PrincessMommy
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 734


OCA


« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2011, 04:45:59 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Yeah, and isn't there something going on with the economy?? 
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2011, 04:46:36 PM »

I agree with some of the commentators: the State overcharged her. I think she was probably involved and more likely than not was behind it, but the State was not able to prove their extensive case beyond all reasonable doubt. They probably thought the jury would find her guilty on a lesser charge. But that way of thinking can backfire too, which I think we have seen here.

It helps to think of it this way I think: she was found not guilty of the State's charges. That's all a trial really is. She was not declared innocent of the crime. But, due to double jeopardy, she can never be charged for this crime again. But she will still stand with the rest of us on Judgment Day, and the Lord will do what he feels is right.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 04:47:13 PM by bogdan » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2011, 04:49:53 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

What I don't understand is how these cases suddenly become national phenomena. OJ I can understand, being a celebrity, but there are hundreds of murders every week in this country. Why do some become media circuses and others don't?

It is a problem with the voyeuristic society we have become.
Logged
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #33 on: July 05, 2011, 04:52:47 PM »

I'll just say this....I wasn't there. I don't know if she did it or not. And, either verdict, I still wouldn't know and none of us will know for sure. True, there were some really weird defense arguments (I didn't follow the case, but from the little news snippets I heard, it sounded like a weak defense case).

I think of it this way: only three people truly know if she did it (and I have to assume that since no eye-witnesses provided testimony)...her, God and the victim. And, if she did truly do it, then I am perfectly content with letting God deal with it as He sees fit. Any other consideration of this matter, by me, would be futile and not change anything. Guilty or not, God will take care of the matter.

Our justice system is flawed, anyway. Look how many people, with hard evidence and perhaps even eye-witness evidence go free and look how many convicted people, years later, are suddenly proved to be right...they didn't commit the crime they were convicted in. Not saying that we shouldn't arrest people and try them, but to put all our trust and faith in the justice system is kind of stupid. No matter what, God will take care of it all, in the end.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: July 05, 2011, 04:53:48 PM »

No offense to anyone upset by this verdict, but I'm so glad that our legal system is based on proving a case and not on how frothy-mou­thed Nancy Graces and others FEEL.

Hear, hear!
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 885


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #35 on: July 05, 2011, 04:57:32 PM »

Lets hope she commits another crime, like OJ and ends up where she belongs...

You get away with a crime once, you're probably delusional enough to believe you can do it again.

Our justice system is so messed up...

Personally, I think that her tubes should be tied so that she cannot have anymore children.  I hate the thought of her having another child and killing him/her too.  That would be a huge price to pay for the mom to finally end up where she belongs.

I just have one question--how many parents who have a child that accidentally drown hide the body and pretends the child is missing instead of calling 911 to hopefully save the child?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #36 on: July 05, 2011, 05:01:05 PM »

Lets hope she commits another crime, like OJ and ends up where she belongs...

You get away with a crime once, you're probably delusional enough to believe you can do it again.

Our justice system is so messed up...

Personally, I think that her tubes should be tied so that she cannot have anymore children.  I hate the thought of her having another child and killing him/her too.  That would be a huge price to pay for the mom to finally end up where she belongs.

I just have one question--how many parents who have a child that accidentally drown hide the body and pretends the child is missing instead of calling 911 to hopefully save the child?
I would say 1, Susan Smith, but that was no accident, and she called 911-to set them off on a wild goose chase for a black man.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
katherine 2001
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 885


Eastern Orthodox Church--Established in 33 A.D.


« Reply #37 on: July 05, 2011, 05:02:27 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

That's an ugly response, kiddo. 

So much for the hospital for soul approach.

FRY THE &IATCH...eh?

I guarantee you that if she became Orthodox and confessed that she killed her little girl that the priest would require her to go and confess to the authorities and confess to them.  That would be part of repentance.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 05, 2011, 05:06:35 PM »

So officially a mother can do no wrong, something us in divorce court knew already.

That's an ugly response, kiddo. 

So much for the hospital for soul approach.

FRY THE &IATCH...eh?

I know Katherine.  I'm sorry.  I was actually growling at Isa.  Not Orthodoxy.

M.
I guarantee you that if she became Orthodox and confessed that she killed her little girl that the priest would require her to go and confess to the authorities and confess to them.  That would be part of repentance.
Logged

88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #39 on: July 05, 2011, 05:18:16 PM »

I just think it's bs that you dismiss a case because of circumstantial evidence... come on... it's pretty clear she is guilty. even if it's a heap of circumstantial evidence, that should be enough to convict her. Sure if the case is only built on a few points that are circumstantial, then fine. But when you have so much evidence, even if its circumstantial, you should convict.

I hope the jury realizes what they've done. Maybe they need to go back to school and actually grow brains... so stupid...
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #40 on: July 05, 2011, 05:28:08 PM »

I just think it's bs that you dismiss a case because of circumstantial evidence... come on... it's pretty clear she is guilty. even if it's a heap of circumstantial evidence, that should be enough to convict her. Sure if the case is only built on a few points that are circumstantial, then fine. But when you have so much evidence, even if its circumstantial, you should convict.

I hope the jury realizes what they've done. Maybe they need to go back to school and actually grow brains... so stupid...
In the very least, I would have hung the jury (figuratively, not literally).

The really tragic thing is that this happens all the time, but because it isn't a cute little white girl, it's not news.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #41 on: July 05, 2011, 06:59:52 PM »

I just think it's bs that you dismiss a case because of circumstantial evidence... come on... it's pretty clear she is guilty. even if it's a heap of circumstantial evidence, that should be enough to convict her. Sure if the case is only built on a few points that are circumstantial, then fine. But when you have so much evidence, even if its circumstantial, you should convict.

I hope the jury realizes what they've done. Maybe they need to go back to school and actually grow brains... so stupid...

The case was weak, there was more than reasonable doubt. You're presuming guilt and taking the evidence to construct a narrative that fits your already presumed verdict. But that's not the job of a Jury, a Jury must presume innocence, they must take the evidence and try to fit it into any narrative EXCEPT the prosecutor's narrative...if one can construct a narrative, any narrative, with the evidence, which is at least a slightly plausible (it may not even be most plausible narrative, but just slightly plausible is enough), then it is their duty to acquit.

Our judicial system, imperfect though it may be, is what separates us from the barbaric peoples of this world: the presumption of innocence, the standard of reasonable doubt, the unanimity of the Jury, the right to representation, the independence of the judiciary, the protection against double jeopardy, the constitutional right to due process. In this instance, they system worked perfectly.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2011, 07:08:17 PM »

I just think it's bs that you dismiss a case because of circumstantial evidence... come on... it's pretty clear she is guilty. even if it's a heap of circumstantial evidence, that should be enough to convict her. Sure if the case is only built on a few points that are circumstantial, then fine. But when you have so much evidence, even if its circumstantial, you should convict.

I hope the jury realizes what they've done. Maybe they need to go back to school and actually grow brains... so stupid...

The case was weak, there was more than reasonable doubt. You're presuming guilt and taking the evidence to construct a narrative that fits your already presumed verdict. But that's not the job of a Jury, a Jury must presume innocence, they must take the evidence and try to fit it into any narrative EXCEPT the prosecutor's narrative...if one can construct a narrative, any narrative, with the evidence, which is at least a slightly plausible (it may not even be most plausible narrative, but just slightly plausible is enough), then it is their duty to acquit.

Our judicial system, imperfect though it may be, is what separates us from the barbaric peoples of this world: the presumption of innocence, the standard of reasonable doubt, the unanimity of the Jury, the right to representation, the independence of the judiciary, the protection against double jeopardy, the constitutional right to due process. In this instance, they system worked perfectly.
If she did do it, a child murderer got off.

If she didn't do it, she has been in jail for how long for something she didn't do?

So much for your perfection.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2011, 07:26:46 PM »

I just think it's bs that you dismiss a case because of circumstantial evidence... come on... it's pretty clear she is guilty. even if it's a heap of circumstantial evidence, that should be enough to convict her. Sure if the case is only built on a few points that are circumstantial, then fine. But when you have so much evidence, even if its circumstantial, you should convict.

I hope the jury realizes what they've done. Maybe they need to go back to school and actually grow brains... so stupid...

The case was weak, there was more than reasonable doubt. You're presuming guilt and taking the evidence to construct a narrative that fits your already presumed verdict. But that's not the job of a Jury, a Jury must presume innocence, they must take the evidence and try to fit it into any narrative EXCEPT the prosecutor's narrative...if one can construct a narrative, any narrative, with the evidence, which is at least a slightly plausible (it may not even be most plausible narrative, but just slightly plausible is enough), then it is their duty to acquit.

Our judicial system, imperfect though it may be, is what separates us from the barbaric peoples of this world: the presumption of innocence, the standard of reasonable doubt, the unanimity of the Jury, the right to representation, the independence of the judiciary, the protection against double jeopardy, the constitutional right to due process. In this instance, they system worked perfectly.
If she did do it, a child murderer got off.

If she didn't do it, she has been in jail for how long for something she didn't do?

So much for your perfection.

She was convicted on 4 counts of making false statements, that carries a sentence of up to 4 years, she's only been in jail for 2 1/2 years. The judge can still sentence her to another year and a half or he can determine that time already served was adequate. So this has not been a case of an innocent person sitting in jail for years because of bureaucratic red-tape. It certainly happens in some cases and those are a flaw in the system, one that could be corrected with more generous granting of bail and generous financial compensation for the falsely accused...but it didn't happen in this case; as I said, in this instance, the system worked rather well.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2011, 07:35:16 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.

Whites are generally held to a much higher standard. Ask yourself why that is.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
Xenia1918
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Praying for Divine guidance
Posts: 569



« Reply #45 on: July 05, 2011, 07:38:15 PM »

Everyone who is upset over this case, remember: people may evade justice on this earth, but we will all stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ. She will not escape forever, if she committed this crime.
Logged

"O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us..." (from the Prayer of St Basil the Great)

REAL RC: http://www.traditionalmass.org
REAL OC: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #46 on: July 05, 2011, 07:50:10 PM »

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt she did it. It doesn't matter if the evidence is circumstantial, or that there is "reasonable doubt"... Our justice system isn't just a little bit flawed, it's simply stupid!

OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that bastard did it! Now look, hes rotting in a cell where he belongs!

Let's just hope the family has had enough and decides to take her to court, and lets hope those jurors and judge are smart enough to find Casey Anthony liable in her daughters death. Make sure she doesn't make a dime off her filicide.

I hope she commits some other crime and spends the rest of her rotten life in a prison cell.
Logged
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #47 on: July 05, 2011, 07:56:59 PM »

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt she did it. It doesn't matter if the evidence is circumstantial, or that there is "reasonable doubt"... Our justice system isn't just a little bit flawed, it's simply stupid!

OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that bastard did it! Now look, hes rotting in a cell where he belongs!

Let's just hope the family has had enough and decides to take her to court, and lets hope those jurors and judge are smart enough to find Casey Anthony liable in her daughters death. Make sure she doesn't make a dime off her filicide.

I hope she commits some other crime and spends the rest of her rotten life in a prison cell.

We do? I mean, do we? Where any of us there and witness it? We can't know for sure she did it as none of us were actually there and there was no eye-witness to say "I saw her do it."

Also, hoping she commits a crime is kind of messed up. What about the victim of that crime? I think this is a reason Christ warned us against judging. We can become so consumed that it becomes the focus..."Getting that person." So consumed that we forget how others may be effected.

At this point, guilty or not, God will take care of it. We really don't need to worry about this. There are bigger things that we can concentrate on.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #48 on: July 05, 2011, 08:07:43 PM »

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt she did it. It doesn't matter if the evidence is circumstantial, or that there is "reasonable doubt"... Our justice system isn't just a little bit flawed, it's simply stupid!

OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that bastard did it! Now look, hes rotting in a cell where he belongs!

Accidental death leading to panic and mania is a plausible narrative, also the prospect that her father did it is a plausible narrative. The evidence failed to rule out either of those possibilities and thus there is more than reasonable doubt. You may think that she did it, maybe she even did do it, but both those are completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote
Let's just hope the family has had enough and decides to take her to court, and lets hope those jurors and judge are smart enough to find Casey Anthony liable in her daughters death. Make sure she doesn't make a dime off her filicide.

Do her parents even have standing to bring such a suit? I'm not certain but I don't think so.

Quote
I hope she commits some other crime and spends the rest of her rotten life in a prison cell.

So you hope that an innocent person is harmed so you have an opportunity to take revenge for a crime she has been declared not guilty of? Is that the kind of stuff they teach you at church?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #49 on: July 05, 2011, 08:20:54 PM »

Anyone feel the outcome would have differed were the facts tried by a judge alone?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,472



« Reply #50 on: July 05, 2011, 08:25:03 PM »

Anyone feel the outcome would have differed were the facts tried by a judge alone?

Perhaps but I think that would be a horrifying precedent. 
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #51 on: July 05, 2011, 08:25:30 PM »

Speaking as a prosecutor, good for the jury.  If the prosecution can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they neither deserve nor are entitled to a conviction.  If the jury wasn't convinced, good on them for not caving to public opinion and rendering the popular verdict.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,826



« Reply #52 on: July 05, 2011, 08:42:24 PM »

Let's just hope the family has had enough and decides to take her to court, and lets hope those jurors and judge are smart enough to find Casey Anthony liable in her daughters death. Make sure she doesn't make a dime off her filicide.

As much as I thought OJ was guilty and got off because of prosecutorial incompetence, a defense team with sophistry to spare and a media that warned everyone that a guilty verdict would set back race relations by decades, etc. etc. the civil suit brought against him smacked of double jeopardy and set bad legal precedent, IMO.  Such should not be done here.  Casey is going to get what's coming to her; we don't need to worry about that. 

My outrage is more directed towards the idiots on the jury. I'm sure they'll be selling their rights to the Casey Anthony Lifetime movie in the next few weeks.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #53 on: July 05, 2011, 08:46:00 PM »

Let's just hope the family has had enough and decides to take her to court, and lets hope those jurors and judge are smart enough to find Casey Anthony liable in her daughters death. Make sure she doesn't make a dime off her filicide.

As much as I thought OJ was guilty and got off because of prosecutorial incompetence, a defense team with sophistry to spare and a media that warned everyone that a guilty verdict would set back race relations by decades, etc. etc. the civil suit brought against him smacked of double jeopardy and set bad legal precedent, IMO.

As a lawyer, I fail to see why this troubles you.

The standard of proof differs in civil actions and criminal prosecutions. The elements of the tort or crime also differ -- criminal assault and tortious assault are not the same thing, even though they can arise out of the same set of facts.

I'm interested in your thoughts!
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 08:46:57 PM by akimori makoto » Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,826



« Reply #54 on: July 05, 2011, 08:51:36 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #55 on: July 05, 2011, 09:01:40 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #56 on: July 05, 2011, 09:05:04 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Another ! for this.  I watched a few seconds of a clip where hundreds were waiting in line to see the trial.  They were pushing each other, laughing, acting as if they were queuing for a roller-coaster or a day at the Coliseum.  This wasn't the story though, it was just the "interest" people had.  

Disgusting behavior.  Spare me the board in my eye argument, I'm already painfully aware of my judgmental tendencies.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #57 on: July 05, 2011, 09:11:29 PM »

...I can continue to wait with baited breath, uninterrupted, for the start of the English Premier League again.  laugh

English NPower League One doesn't quite have the same appeal or coverage.   Sad
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #58 on: July 05, 2011, 09:31:11 PM »

I'm not hoping for some violent crime that gets someone hurt. OJ committed a crime, and the man wasn't really physically hurt (as far as I know). The big mistake he made was that he had guns on hand during the crime, that is what has put him in jail for so long.

Maybe Casey is going to get stupid and maybe something similar happens, she commits some crime that isn't really major, but the details in it are what put her away for life...

It is the jury that really has decided both the OJ and the Casey cases. They were idiots.
I'd be willing to bet that the jury in this case was slanted just like the OJ case. OJ should have been tried in Santa Monica, not Downtown LA.

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Use your common sense, screw the law. The law screws things up all the time, and it's a very messed up system.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #59 on: July 05, 2011, 09:31:42 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!
Many times, worse.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #60 on: July 05, 2011, 09:35:47 PM »

Speaking as a prosecutor, good for the jury.  If the prosecution can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they neither deserve nor are entitled to a conviction.  If the jury wasn't convinced, good on them for not caving to public opinion and rendering the popular verdict.
I thought they were sequestered. They shouldn't know what is a popular or unpopular verdict.

Though I can see some of the criticism of the prosecution in this case, as with the OJ case.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #61 on: July 05, 2011, 09:36:24 PM »

A wrongful death claim doesn't fall under double-jeopardy, thankfully. Hopefully a member of the family will open a case on her and at least punish Casey financially.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: July 05, 2011, 09:37:39 PM »

Anyone feel the outcome would have differed were the facts tried by a judge alone?

Perhaps but I think that would be a horrifying precedent. 
And it's not like judges don't screw up.  And they bribe easier.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #63 on: July 05, 2011, 09:39:06 PM »

Speaking as a prosecutor, good for the jury.  If the prosecution can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, they neither deserve nor are entitled to a conviction.  If the jury wasn't convinced, good on them for not caving to public opinion and rendering the popular verdict.

The evidence doesn't matter, it's the person's guilt or innocence that matters. She is clearly guilty, if the prosecution doesn't have proof beyond reasonable doubt, who cares?
Justice is far more important than technicalities in the legal system.

If I rob a store, and the prosecution can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt I did it, I still belong in a jail cell. Sometimes I wish we had some sort of truth serum that actually made you tell the truth. Sadly, the only stuff we've got just "loosens the lips", irregardless if its true or not...

Is there technology that actually scans the brain and watches for lying vs. truthtelling? Obviously we all know about lie-detector tests, but aren't those just based on "outer" signs rather than brain activity?
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 09:41:06 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,529


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #64 on: July 05, 2011, 09:40:27 PM »

Well...You have to actually PROVE someone is guilty. Speculation isn't proof. They didn't have a very good case against her in terms of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

A Jury cant stand up and say : "It kinda looks like she may be guilty"

Nancy Grace is a despicable shrew.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #65 on: July 05, 2011, 09:41:28 PM »

A wrongful death claim doesn't fall under double-jeopardy, thankfully. Hopefully a member of the family will open a case on her and at least punish Casey financially.
What does she have that she doesn't owe to her parents? Wasn't she living with them?

Geraldo Rivera brought up something that I've always wondered, where's the father?  Someone said he was deceased but known to the Anthonys, but then there was the implication that the brother was the father, and the mention here and there about the father never being a subject.

The whole thing is strange.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 05, 2011, 09:41:56 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #67 on: July 05, 2011, 09:42:23 PM »

Well...You have to actually PROVE someone is guilty. Speculation isn't proof. They didn't have a very good case against her in terms of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

A Jury cant stand up and say : "It kinda looks like she may be guilty"

Nancy Grace is a despicable shrew.
LOL. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2011, 09:42:43 PM »

Well...You have to actually PROVE someone is guilty. Speculation isn't proof. They didn't have a very good case against her in terms of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt...

A Jury cant stand up and say : "It kinda looks like she may be guilty"

Nancy Grace is a despicable shrew.

The jury could say that she is guilty based on the current evidence. There IS evidence. Just because it's not good for some people doesn't mean it isn't evidence. This murderer had what, almost a month to cover it up?
Logged
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2011, 09:44:13 PM »

I'm not hoping for some violent crime that gets someone hurt. OJ committed a crime, and the man wasn't really physically hurt (as far as I know). The big mistake he made was that he had guns on hand during the crime, that is what has put him in jail for so long.

Maybe Casey is going to get stupid and maybe something similar happens, she commits some crime that isn't really major, but the details in it are what put her away for life...

It is the jury that really has decided both the OJ and the Casey cases. They were idiots.
I'd be willing to bet that the jury in this case was slanted just like the OJ case. OJ should have been tried in Santa Monica, not Downtown LA.

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Use your common sense, screw the law. The law screws things up all the time, and it's a very messed up system.

What crime then? Stealing something? That hurts someone since she took something from them. And stealing wouldn't get someone life in prison. I was a little surprised as the little I heard made it sound like the defense was pretty weak (the whole scared defense).

Using our "common sense" can get us in trouble to. Since we are imperfect, out common sense would be as imperfect as the law which was created by imperfect people. Like I said before, God will deal with this. That should be enough for us.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2011, 09:44:31 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2011, 09:45:43 PM »

I'm not hoping for some violent crime that gets someone hurt. OJ committed a crime, and the man wasn't really physically hurt (as far as I know). The big mistake he made was that he had guns on hand during the crime, that is what has put him in jail for so long.

Maybe Casey is going to get stupid and maybe something similar happens, she commits some crime that isn't really major, but the details in it are what put her away for life...

It is the jury that really has decided both the OJ and the Casey cases. They were idiots.
I'd be willing to bet that the jury in this case was slanted just like the OJ case. OJ should have been tried in Santa Monica, not Downtown LA.

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Use your common sense, screw the law. The law screws things up all the time, and it's a very messed up system.

What crime then? Stealing something? That hurts someone since she took something from them. And stealing wouldn't get someone life in prison. I was a little surprised as the little I heard made it sound like the defense was pretty weak (the whole scared defense).

Using our "common sense" can get us in trouble to. Since we are imperfect, out common sense would be as imperfect as the law which was created by imperfect people. Like I said before, God will deal with this. That should be enough for us.

Actually armed robbery gets you many, many years in prison, a la OJ Simpson.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2011, 09:47:07 PM »

A wrongful death claim doesn't fall under double-jeopardy, thankfully. Hopefully a member of the family will open a case on her and at least punish Casey financially.
What does she have that she doesn't owe to her parents? Wasn't she living with them?

Geraldo Rivera brought up something that I've always wondered, where's the father?  Someone said he was deceased but known to the Anthonys, but then there was the implication that the brother was the father, and the mention here and there about the father never being a subject.

The whole thing is strange.

A child produced from an incestuous relationship would have a higher chance of dying suddenly. According to a 1967 article in the Journal of Pediatrics

Quote
Eighteen prospectively ascertained cases of brother x sister and father x daughter matings are described. A series of illegitimate children whose mothers were as nearly matched as possible to the incest mothers for intelligence, age, height, weight, and socioeconomic conditions were used as controls. Six of the children of incest had died or were found to have major defects on follow-up 6 months after birth date, whereas one of the comparison children was so classified. This is a larger inbreeding effect than would be predicted on the basis of published findings from marriages of first cousins. The series is published at this time to encourage others to collect these important, but rare and elusive data, in a prospective, controlled manner.

In 1978, the following article was published:

Quote
Brother-sister and father-daughter incest is far from a rare occurrence and Weitzel et al (see p 127) are correct to emphasize the need for empathetic support for the involved daughters and brother and sisters. However, we must not lose sight of the children who may, or in fact do, result from such unions.

The women involved are almost invariably young,1 a fact that adds a well-recognized increase in mortality and morbidity among the resulting children. More importantly, progeny of incestuous unions have an inbreeding intensity four times that of first cousin marriage. Data suggest2 that there is a 4% to 5% greater frequency in death plus major congenital defect in children of first cousins compared with control children. In the children of a first cousin marriage, the probability that a child will be homozygous for a specific gene present in one of the grandparents is .0625

Both articles can be found at a college and/or medical school library since some kind of registration is required to view the full PDF files.  If Caylee Anthony was a product of incest, her sudden death and destruction of DNA is a secret belonging to the Anthony family in that they all got away with incest and murder.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 10:00:28 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2011, 09:50:04 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...

Have you read the Scarlet Letter?  Like with Casey Anthony's life, there was no happy ending.
Logged
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2011, 09:56:17 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...


Hold on while I check my Bible for where Christ said to shun people because they screwed up (for the sake of argument, I'll make the assumption that she actually did do it).

Really? I mean...really? And you can say whatever you want about me and what I'm saying here but we're going down a bad path saying stuff like this.
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #75 on: July 05, 2011, 09:57:38 PM »

I'm not hoping for some violent crime that gets someone hurt. OJ committed a crime, and the man wasn't really physically hurt (as far as I know). The big mistake he made was that he had guns on hand during the crime, that is what has put him in jail for so long.

Maybe Casey is going to get stupid and maybe something similar happens, she commits some crime that isn't really major, but the details in it are what put her away for life...

It is the jury that really has decided both the OJ and the Casey cases. They were idiots.
I'd be willing to bet that the jury in this case was slanted just like the OJ case. OJ should have been tried in Santa Monica, not Downtown LA.

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Use your common sense, screw the law. The law screws things up all the time, and it's a very messed up system.

What crime then? Stealing something? That hurts someone since she took something from them. And stealing wouldn't get someone life in prison. I was a little surprised as the little I heard made it sound like the defense was pretty weak (the whole scared defense).

Using our "common sense" can get us in trouble to. Since we are imperfect, out common sense would be as imperfect as the law which was created by imperfect people. Like I said before, God will deal with this. That should be enough for us.

The English have a saying: "common sense is as long or short as the Chancellor's foot", referring to the propensity of the Courts of Equity to do whatever the hell they felt like in the early years.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #76 on: July 05, 2011, 10:00:00 PM »

Anyone feel the outcome would have differed were the facts tried by a judge alone?

Perhaps but I think that would be a horrifying precedent. 
And it's not like judges don't screw up.  And they bribe easier.

I think judges make poorer triers of fact than juries in cases where the facts/law distinction isn't too blurry -- was just curious.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #77 on: July 05, 2011, 10:27:49 PM »

I'm not hoping for some violent crime that gets someone hurt. OJ committed a crime, and the man wasn't really physically hurt (as far as I know). The big mistake he made was that he had guns on hand during the crime, that is what has put him in jail for so long.

Maybe Casey is going to get stupid and maybe something similar happens, she commits some crime that isn't really major, but the details in it are what put her away for life...

It is the jury that really has decided both the OJ and the Casey cases. They were idiots.
I'd be willing to bet that the jury in this case was slanted just like the OJ case. OJ should have been tried in Santa Monica, not Downtown LA.

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Use your common sense, screw the law. The law screws things up all the time, and it's a very messed up system.

What crime then? Stealing something? That hurts someone since she took something from them. And stealing wouldn't get someone life in prison. I was a little surprised as the little I heard made it sound like the defense was pretty weak (the whole scared defense).

Using our "common sense" can get us in trouble to. Since we are imperfect, out common sense would be as imperfect as the law which was created by imperfect people. Like I said before, God will deal with this. That should be enough for us.

The English have a saying: "common sense is as long or short as the Chancellor's foot", referring to the propensity of the Courts of Equity to do whatever the hell they felt like in the early years.
I rather like the principle of equity.  The elimination of it only results in injustice.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #78 on: July 05, 2011, 10:39:35 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...

Have you read the Scarlet Letter?  Like with Casey Anthony's life, there was no happy ending.
Depends what you think is a happy ending. (I just saw the old silent movie.  The Dimmesdale actor was a classic).

Shunned? No, she'll do a reality show and end up on Survivor or the Apprentice.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #79 on: July 05, 2011, 10:41:51 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...


Hold on while I check my Bible for where Christ said to shun people because they screwed up (for the sake of argument, I'll make the assumption that she actually did do it).

Really? I mean...really? And you can say whatever you want about me and what I'm saying here but we're going down a bad path saying stuff like this.

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #80 on: July 05, 2011, 10:58:35 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...

Have you read the Scarlet Letter?  Like with Casey Anthony's life, there was no happy ending.
Depends what you think is a happy ending. (I just saw the old silent movie.  The Dimmesdale actor was a classic).

Caylee - Casey Anthony's brother was named Lee ... coincidence?  The death penalty no longer applies to adulterers as depicted in the Scarlet Letter; however, the question is will Casey gain strength and stamina (as did Hester Prynne) to continue with her life outside of the past 6+ years (since conceiving Caylee)?

Shunned? No, she'll do a reality show and end up on Survivor or the Apprentice.

Like OJ Simpson before her?   Roll Eyes  I wonder what dinner at the Anthony family home will look like Thursday evening if Casey walks out of the courtroom a free woman?   Huh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: July 05, 2011, 11:07:09 PM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...

Have you read the Scarlet Letter?  Like with Casey Anthony's life, there was no happy ending.
Depends what you think is a happy ending. (I just saw the old silent movie.  The Dimmesdale actor was a classic).

Caylee - Casey Anthony's brother was named Lee ... coincidence?  The death penalty no longer applies to adulterers as depicted in the Scarlet Letter; however, the question is will Casey gain strength and stamina (as did Hester Prynne) to continue with her life outside of the past 6+ years (since conceiving Caylee)?

Shunned? No, she'll do a reality show and end up on Survivor or the Apprentice.

Like OJ Simpson before her?   Roll Eyes
  IIRC he did the golf circuit instead.

I wonder what dinner at the Anthony family home will look like Thursday evening if Casey walks out of the courtroom a free woman?   Huh
The holidays should be interesting.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #82 on: July 05, 2011, 11:14:13 PM »

What incredibly horrible responses.  The judgments of we know, the attacks on her and wishing she was made incapable of having children. etc.

I will find it highly ironic if she turned to the Church then by the time of her death she was seen as a Saint.

Go ahead, keep judging the outcome as if you know.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #83 on: July 05, 2011, 11:19:33 PM »

What incredibly horrible responses.  The judgments of we know, the attacks on her and wishing she was made incapable of having children. etc.

I will find it highly ironic if she turned to the Church then by the time of her death she was seen as a Saint.

Go ahead, keep judging the outcome as if you know.

Go ahead, keep trusting the all-infallible justice system...
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 05, 2011, 11:20:12 PM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh
Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #85 on: July 05, 2011, 11:24:58 PM »

What incredibly horrible responses.  The judgments of we know, the attacks on her and wishing she was made incapable of having children. etc.

I will find it highly ironic if she turned to the Church then by the time of her death she was seen as a Saint.

Go ahead, keep judging the outcome as if you know.

Go ahead, keep trusting the all-infallible justice system...

I don't trust the justice system one bit, especially with all the behind the scenes blackmail of defendants. BTW I in my original post did not say anything positive or negative concerning the justice system. 
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #86 on: July 05, 2011, 11:34:01 PM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 11:36:14 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #87 on: July 05, 2011, 11:48:13 PM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 06, 2011, 12:06:09 AM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison.

In 1999, the following appeared in an abstract:

Quote
The absence of the father as a vital force in family life played a key role in the sexual abuse of women by their brothers in every case. The duration of the sexual abuse for brother-abused women and father-abused women was lengthy. The characteristics, including use of force, are equally as serious for sisters as for daughters. The family circumstances surrounding the abuse were examined for both groups and the results yielded a fuller understanding of the incestuous family. Despite an appearance of normalcy, the level of family-wide disturbances, for example substance abuse, mental illness and pervasive family-wide violence were profound for both groups. In this study, we also examine the effects in adulthood of the serious disruption of childhood developmental phases for both brother-abused and father-abused women, taking into account the incidence of substance abuse, depression, suicidality, and eating disorders.

For sake of argument, let's say that Casey Anthony is mentally equivalent to a ten year old child as a result of incest from her brother.  Would you send someone with the mental aptitude of a 10 year old to death row for killing a child produced as a result of incest?

If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

In Florida, 12 year olds are being charged as adults with first degree murder.  How many of them will have 3 high profile defense attorneys working around the clock for them?  Where's the injustice?

If you want to put your eggs in the Church, that is your direction.  Note that the Church chooses to remain silent on many issues such as the disintegration of the family.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #89 on: July 06, 2011, 12:41:52 AM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison.

In 1999, the following appeared in an abstract:

Quote
The absence of the father as a vital force in family life played a key role in the sexual abuse of women by their brothers in every case. The duration of the sexual abuse for brother-abused women and father-abused women was lengthy. The characteristics, including use of force, are equally as serious for sisters as for daughters. The family circumstances surrounding the abuse were examined for both groups and the results yielded a fuller understanding of the incestuous family. Despite an appearance of normalcy, the level of family-wide disturbances, for example substance abuse, mental illness and pervasive family-wide violence were profound for both groups. In this study, we also examine the effects in adulthood of the serious disruption of childhood developmental phases for both brother-abused and father-abused women, taking into account the incidence of substance abuse, depression, suicidality, and eating disorders.

For sake of argument, let's say that Casey Anthony is mentally equivalent to a ten year old child as a result of incest from her brother.  Would you send someone with the mental aptitude of a 10 year old to death row for killing a child produced as a result of incest?

If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

In Florida, 12 year olds are being charged as adults with first degree murder.  How many of them will have 3 high profile defense attorneys working around the clock for them?  Where's the injustice?

If you want to put your eggs in the Church, that is your direction.  Note that the Church chooses to remain silent on many issues such as the disintegration of the family.

Who said anything about death row?

Just because the church chooses to remain silent doesn't mean I am obligated to do the same. The church allows me to form my own opinions on matters like this.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #90 on: July 06, 2011, 12:51:49 AM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?

I don't believe women that have abortions should be put in prison for doing so. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the aborted child. But if a mother (or anyone else) deliberately commits filicide against a born child, then that mother belongs in prison.

Think about it, the unborn child doesn't have a voice, sadly, the woman that has an abortion often doesn't realize she is committing murder. But in a case like Casey Anthony, her daughter is clearly, CLEARLY a living human being that is alive, intelligent and breathing. Her daughter could look her in the eyes and cry "Mommy, Why?" and ask her mom why she was hurting her...
Casey Anthony knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was killing a child. Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.

-Think of it this way... Women that have abortions are told by doctors and by society that the child in their womb is not actually a child, it's just a fetus, and therefore it isn't wrong to terminate it. So a woman who becomes impregnated due to incest or rape is more likely to have an abortion because she has been taught to think that it isn't a human being yet.
-However, women who have had a child, and it has breathed it's first breath, cried its first tears, seen light for the first time, women who have these children know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that is a living, breathing human being just like them.

In both cases, it would be murder of an innocent human being. But there is a difference, because in one case, the person may not realize that the fetus (who doesn't have a voice) is a living human being. But in the other, it is absolutely clear that it is a human being.

Unless Casey were insane, there is nothing that could excuse the murder of one's own child.
Logged
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #91 on: July 06, 2011, 01:23:26 AM »

This might just be a case where the jury was clearly slanted and wouldn't convince some pretty little white girl of murdering her daughter so she could be a mini-socialite.

If it were an accident, she would have told someone, and wouldn't have buried her daughter, or covered it up.

Children can die suddenly and the symptoms of death mimic those of child abuse.  Casey Anthony's father (former police officer) knew how the legal system operated and "for all we know" anticipated his daughter's arrest and prosecution.  By Casey's sentencing, the judge will likely give Casey credit for almost 3 years behind bars and release her back to whatever lifestyle Casey pursued before becoming pregnant and giving birth to Caylee.  Plus, Casey can apply for a pardon and some FL governor will likely grant her that pardon....

If that'll be the case, then I sincerely hope she is shunned in society. Of course, I have no doubt that'd happen. See how she likes her new life when people won't have anything to do with her...


Hold on while I check my Bible for where Christ said to shun people because they screwed up (for the sake of argument, I'll make the assumption that she actually did do it).

Really? I mean...really? And you can say whatever you want about me and what I'm saying here but we're going down a bad path saying stuff like this.

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

I don't disagree there are consequences. That's true, but hoping that someone suffers consequences is a little dangerous. In addition to forgiving her and praying for her, there is also loving her. Hoping she is shunned doesn't fit with loving her. The goverenmnet's job is to deal with the worldly justice. Our Chrisitan duty, however, is on a different level.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 01:30:34 AM by John Ward » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,092


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #92 on: July 06, 2011, 04:09:44 AM »

At least she was tried, unlike the millions of other women that murder their childen with impunity in this country.

The lamp of Diogenes is barely a flicker in this Babylon night.


Selam
Logged

"If you stop to throw stones at every dog that barks at you along the way, you will never reach your goal." [Turkish Proverb]
Philoumenos
Wishes Jews Would Come to Christ
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 80



« Reply #93 on: July 06, 2011, 05:46:18 AM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.

Whites are generally held to a much higher standard. Ask yourself why that is.

And the media doesn't report the non-White crimes purposely.

Not because their audience doesn't care - but because they don't want Americans to know the true extent of all of this.
Logged

“If my sons did not want war, there would be none.” - Gutle Schnapper, wife of Mayer Amschel Rothschild

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #94 on: July 06, 2011, 10:18:40 AM »

Who said anything about death row?

The State was seeking the death penalty in the Casey Anthony case.  Had there been a conviction for first degree murder, the same jury would have deliberated whether or not to send Casey to death row.

Just because the church chooses to remain silent doesn't mean I am obligated to do the same. The church allows me to form my own opinions on matters like this.

The Church is against the death penalty; so am I; everyone else here has his/her own opinions on the matter which may or may not contradict the Church's teachings.
Logged
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 06, 2011, 10:25:52 AM »

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?

I don't believe women that have abortions should be put in prison for doing so. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the aborted child. But if a mother (or anyone else) deliberately commits filicide against a born child, then that mother belongs in prison.

Think about it, the unborn child doesn't have a voice, sadly, the woman that has an abortion often doesn't realize she is committing murder. But in a case like Casey Anthony, her daughter is clearly, CLEARLY a living human being that is alive, intelligent and breathing. Her daughter could look her in the eyes and cry "Mommy, Why?" and ask her mom why she was hurting her...
Casey Anthony knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was killing a child. Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.

That is very callous.

Unless Casey were insane, there is nothing that could excuse the murder of one's own child.

You don't believe years and decades of incest can render a woman insane?   Huh

Note that while the defense's allegations that Caylee was a product of incest were not totally repudiated, they did create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.  There are still 3 people who can be tried for Caylee's murder if the State can provide beyond a reasonable doubt that any or all of those 3 people committed the crime.  The family had a chance to sell out Casey on the stand and they didn't and perhaps blood is thicker than water....
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 06, 2011, 11:58:54 AM »

Quote
Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.


Quote
That is very callous.

Its not callous at all. Does incest or rape make the child any less valuable to the Lord? Does it make it less deserving of life?

I wont debate the legality of abortion, but from a human standpoint, the method of creation, to me, does not matter.

Quote
The family had a chance to sell out Casey on the stand and they didn't and perhaps blood is thicker than water....

I dont know many mothers would would NOT lie for their kid in a life or death case like this.

I was at service last night and my priest said something simple, yet profound. We were discussing how bad of a person Casey probably was and the priest said plainly, "Would you compare your sins to hers? Are you that sure of yourselves? Would you cast the first stone?" We quickly changes subjects Smiley

primuspilus

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #97 on: July 06, 2011, 12:44:44 PM »

Who said anything about death row?

The State was seeking the death penalty in the Casey Anthony case.  Had there been a conviction for first degree murder, the same jury would have deliberated whether or not to send Casey to death row.

Just because the church chooses to remain silent doesn't mean I am obligated to do the same. The church allows me to form my own opinions on matters like this.

The Church is against the death penalty; so am I; everyone else here has his/her own opinions on the matter which may or may not contradict the Church's teachings.

If it was clearly pre-meditated then the death penalty might no be excessive. But if they could prove it wasn't pre-meditated and that Casey had underlying problems due to abuse and incest, then they could easily plead her down to life in prison.

The Church is against the death penalty? That's news to me... Maybe you should do a look through history...

A good series off AFR about Capital Punishment and the Orthodox Church:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_1
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_p
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_3
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_4
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_5
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_6
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_7
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_final

He discusses the topic in detail, showing that the Orthodox Church throughout history has come out on both sides of the issue, both in favor of the death penalty and against it.

The Bible deals with sin and our fallen state. It mentions forgiveness, but it never, ever says that the consequences of one's actions should be erased just because they've been forgiven. In fact, I think the Bible actually told Christians to do the opposite. Obey the authorities, submitting to consequences of your actions. If you do wrong, then you can be forgiven, but that doesn't mean you escape worldly justice and don't have to face the consequences. The Early Christians were breaking the law by refusing to worship Caesar, and yet, while they broke the law, they still submitted to the consequence of breaking that law.

Render unto Caesar what is due to Caeser. This is about justice and consequences, that isn't connected to Christian forgiveness. We need to forgive her and pray for her, but that doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

How about a victim of incest?  How about a victim of incest who kills the one abusing him/her?  Two wrongs do not make a right; however, the US legal system can take into account crimes committed under duress, under fear and under intimidation.  If a woman killed a relative who committed incest, should she rot in a jail cell?  If a woman killed her own child conceived due to incest, does she deserve the death penalty?   Huh

The justice system should have something in place to determine "just kill". So if someone is committed of murder, they could then proceed to a trial that determines if it was a just kill.

Also no, if you kill a child that is a result of incest, you are a murderer and belong in prison. If a woman has an abortion just because she was raped or it was due to incest, it's still a baby that is being killed. (I would argue the mother that had the abortion doesn't belong in prison, but here we are talking about a 2 year old girl, that goes beyond abortion)

It goes beyond abortion, how so?

I don't believe women that have abortions should be put in prison for doing so. That doesn't mean I don't value the life of the aborted child. But if a mother (or anyone else) deliberately commits filicide against a born child, then that mother belongs in prison.

Think about it, the unborn child doesn't have a voice, sadly, the woman that has an abortion often doesn't realize she is committing murder. But in a case like Casey Anthony, her daughter is clearly, CLEARLY a living human being that is alive, intelligent and breathing. Her daughter could look her in the eyes and cry "Mommy, Why?" and ask her mom why she was hurting her...
Casey Anthony knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was killing a child. Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.

That is very callous.

Unless Casey were insane, there is nothing that could excuse the murder of one's own child.

You don't believe years and decades of incest can render a woman insane?   Huh

Note that while the defense's allegations that Caylee was a product of incest were not totally repudiated, they did create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.  There are still 3 people who can be tried for Caylee's murder if the State can provide beyond a reasonable doubt that any or all of those 3 people committed the crime.  The family had a chance to sell out Casey on the stand and they didn't and perhaps blood is thicker than water....

Not really it isn't. She committed murder, even if she was the victim of incest, do you think that makes her filicide tolerable or justifiable?

There is a difference between insanity and an emotional/mental disorder. I believe it can tear someone apart, but not to the level of insanity. I know someone who was the subject of active abuse in their family, they are not insane, they have problems, but none of their problems should get them off a murder charge. (unless they killed the person who was hurting them)

If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #98 on: July 06, 2011, 12:53:58 PM »

Quote
If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?

Exactly...murder is murder.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #99 on: July 06, 2011, 01:00:28 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #100 on: July 06, 2011, 01:26:53 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

Financial penalty can be punitive in nature, not just to require lost wealth. Losing money can hurt just as bad, if not worse , than jail time.

It's not double jeopardy because the defendant is charged with different crimes. Also, the nature of proof is different. For a criminal case, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the shouldn't be found guilty. For a criminal, there can be doubt, but there must be linked cause and liability.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #101 on: July 06, 2011, 01:35:29 PM »

Financial penalty can be punitive in nature, not just to require lost wealth. Losing money can hurt just as bad, if not worse , than jail time.

Only for the upper middle class, if you're in the class of people who doesn't even have a bank account and lives paycheck to paycheck below the poverty line and would never even dream of being able to get a loan, or as in here case, has no personal wealth or even a means to generate wealth and relies on others to live, a civil lawsuit is just a minor annoyance.

Your statement betrays your class and lifestyle and demonstrates that you're out of touch with the majority of the population. Civil lawsuits have always been a major threat only to the wealthy.

Quote
It's not double jeopardy because the defendant is charged with different crimes. Also, the nature of proof is different. For a criminal case, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the shouldn't be found guilty. For a criminal, there can be doubt, but there must be linked cause and liability.

It is double jeopardy to retry someone for different crimes related to the same act, which is why the state has lost the option to bring an involuntary manslaughter case against here, even though she was not accused of that in this trial. Allowing a retrial based on different standards of evidence is a loophole SCOTUS has allowed based on the literal reading of the constitution only prohibiting double jeopardy in case of threat to 'life or limb' to not include financial penalty. But it remains contrary to good jurisprudence and, truth be told, the loophole only exists because the authors of the bill of rights decided to be a little too poetic in their writing of the fifth amendment.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #102 on: July 06, 2011, 01:36:44 PM »

Bottom line, it is a vulgar display of voyeurism and statement on our mediated view of our world when a local crime catches the hearts and imaginations of an entire nation to such a degree in virtue of its mere salaciousness.

Aren't we in the US at war or something?

Thank you.

I would also like to add that this kind of thing happens at least weekly in my city, only the victim isn't a cute little white girl with big eyes.

Whites are generally held to a much higher standard. Ask yourself why that is.

By all means, spell it out for us.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #103 on: July 06, 2011, 01:46:20 PM »

Not really it isn't. She committed murder, even if she was the victim of incest, do you think that makes her filicide tolerable or justifiable?

First of all, lest you forget, she was declared NOT GUILTY by a jury of her peers; they didn't merely rule that the prosecution failed to prove there case as would have been the case in the Scottish Verdict, they declared her not guilty. So I would kindly ask you to prove she's guilty before making such libelous accusations, the prosecution couldn't prove her guilt and I doubt you can either.

Quote
There is a difference between insanity and an emotional/mental disorder. I believe it can tear someone apart, but not to the level of insanity. I know someone who was the subject of active abuse in their family, they are not insane, they have problems, but none of their problems should get them off a murder charge. (unless they killed the person who was hurting them)

If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?

You're missing the point, extenuating circumstances is not a matter of justifying murder, it's a matter of judging the culpability of a given individual in the murder. Just as no sane person would even dream of holding a 5 year old responsible for murder (there was a case in the news to that extent not too long ago, a little girl of 5 or 6 drowned a toddler because he wouldn't stop crying), likewise if someone's mental capacity is so diminished at the time of the crime that they are no more capable of social and legal judgements than a 5 year old it would not be reasonable to treat the crime any differently than had a 5 year old committed it.

Of course, this is all moot relative to this trial since the position the defense successfully was NOT that she murdered her child and that her incestuous past should be taken into account as an extenuating circumstance, but rather that she had been trained to lie because of her incestuous past and therefore did so compulsively and that her statements to the police should be seen in that light. The jury agreed and dismissed her statements as panic (and being in the courtroom for the entire trial, they probably know better than any of us on this board, which is why a jury decides guilt and innocence rather than putting the case to the vote of a lynch mob); however, they did not justify her lying, she was convicted on four counts of providing false statements, they just realized that the circumstances made the content of her statements irrelevant to the murder trial at hand.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #104 on: July 06, 2011, 01:47:11 PM »

Not really it isn't. She committed murder, even if she was the victim of incest, do you think that makes her filicide tolerable or justifiable?

If person A sexually abuses person B, so much so that person B becomes emotionally and mentally wounded, does that give person B the right to kill person C?

That is why the insanity defense exists.  Casey's defense team didn't exercise such a defense because their client participated in her own defense in that she had nothing to do with the death of Caylee.  Casey's dysfunctional family kept whatever secrets they had intact.  Hence, time to move on to the next case Nancy Grace wants to shrill about.   Roll Eyes
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #105 on: July 06, 2011, 01:48:35 PM »

Financial penalty can be punitive in nature, not just to require lost wealth. Losing money can hurt just as bad, if not worse , than jail time.

Only for the upper middle class, if you're in the class of people who doesn't even have a bank account and lives paycheck to paycheck below the poverty line and would never even dream of being able to get a loan, or as in here case, has no personal wealth or even a means to generate wealth and relies on others to live, a civil lawsuit is just a minor annoyance.

Your statement betrays your class and lifestyle and demonstrates that you're out of touch with the majority of the population. Civil lawsuits have always been a major threat only to the wealthy.

Financial penalty harms all sides. The amount of damage is both commensurate to the crime and, quite often, the financial abilities of the defendant. If the crime was financial in nature, then the penalty will typically match the crime. If charge is punitive in nature, the financial burden is often issued as capable to offer punishment, and prorated to the financial capabilities. That is, a more wealthy person would require more of a burden to be considered punitive.

Of course being found guilt requires the person to be painfully liable, if not fully GUILTY. If you don't like punitive burdens, then don't break the law.

Your last statement is a joke. It betrays your ideological prejudice, as well as your desire to reclassify and incriminate anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Quote
It's not double jeopardy because the defendant is charged with different crimes. Also, the nature of proof is different. For a criminal case, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is doubt, the shouldn't be found guilty. For a criminal, there can be doubt, but there must be linked cause and liability.

It is double jeopardy to retry someone for different crimes related to the same act, which is why the state has lost the option to bring an involuntary manslaughter case against here, even though she was not accused of that in this trial. Allowing a retrial based on different standards of evidence is a loophole SCOTUS has allowed based on the literal reading of the constitution only prohibiting double jeopardy in case of threat to 'life or limb' to not include financial penalty. But it remains contrary to good jurisprudence and, truth be told, the loophole only exists because the authors of the bill of rights decided to be a little too poetic in their writing of the fifth amendment.

No, it is double jeopardy to try someone twice for the same crime. There is a difference.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #106 on: July 06, 2011, 01:53:03 PM »

Quote
Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.


Quote
That is very callous.

Its not callous at all. Does incest or rape make the child any less valuable to the Lord? Does it make it less deserving of life?

Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest?  You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest.  However, those born due to incest face greater health issues and premature death.

I dont know many mothers would would NOT lie for their kid in a life or death case like this.

I was at service last night and my priest said something simple, yet profound. We were discussing how bad of a person Casey probably was and the priest said plainly, "Would you compare your sins to hers? Are you that sure of yourselves? Would you cast the first stone?" We quickly changes subjects Smiley

Ideally, we shouldn't be discussing high profile criminal trials on this forum.  We did and your Priest is right - I wouldn't throw the first, second, thousandth, etc. stone at Casey.   angel
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #107 on: July 06, 2011, 01:59:48 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #108 on: July 06, 2011, 02:01:25 PM »

Quote
Whether or not it was due to incest is irrelevant.


Quote
That is very callous.

Its not callous at all. Does incest or rape make the child any less valuable to the Lord? Does it make it less deserving of life?

Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest?  You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest.  However, those born due to incest face greater health issues and premature death.

I dont know many mothers would would NOT lie for their kid in a life or death case like this.

I was at service last night and my priest said something simple, yet profound. We were discussing how bad of a person Casey probably was and the priest said plainly, "Would you compare your sins to hers? Are you that sure of yourselves? Would you cast the first stone?" We quickly changes subjects Smiley

Ideally, we shouldn't be discussing high profile criminal trials on this forum.  We did and your Priest is right - I wouldn't throw the first, second, thousandth, etc. stone at Casey.   angel

That DOESN'T give the mother the right to kill her own child! Don't you see that?

So what if a child is sick, retarded, or in risk of premature death? That absolutely never gives us the right to take their life, EVER!

Abortion and filicide are NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY SITUATION, EVER!!!!
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:01:59 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #109 on: July 06, 2011, 02:01:39 PM »

The 12 jurors are remaining mute on the subject, but an alternate, Russell Huekler, who came to the same conclusion as the 12 did speak to the press today and provides some good insight into the thought process of the Jury, here are some quotes from him in an article I came across:

Quote
The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind.

...

The first number of witnesses were Casey's friend and every time that they said they saw Casey with Caylee, it was a loving relationship and no one provided evidence to the contrary

...

Yeah, the behavior was bizarre, but what I took from that is that the family was very dysfunctional. Because they were so dysfunctional, that was the norm for them. Casey didn't just start lying for the first 31 days [after Caylee disappeared]. She had been lying for the past two years...I felt it was the norm for her

I guess it came down to the fact that the prosecution couldn't even prove that a homicide occurred; a jury can hardly convict someone of murder if they can't even be convinced that a murder took place, looks like accidental drowning is the most likely cause of death.

EDIT: Forgot to include the source for the above quotes.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-verdict-alternate-juror-calls-good-mother/story?id=14005609
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:27:11 PM by GiC » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #110 on: July 06, 2011, 02:05:26 PM »

The 12 jurors are remaining mute on the subject, but an alternate, Russell Huekler, who came to the same conclusion as the 12 did speak to the press today and provides some good insight into the thought process of the Jury, here are some quotes from him in an article I came across:

Quote
The prosecution failed to prove their case and there was reasonable doubt. Again, they didn't show us how Caylee died. They didn't show us a motive. I'm sorry people feel that way. ... These were 17 total jurors. They really listened to this case and kept an open mind.

...

The first number of witnesses were Casey's friend and every time that they said they saw Casey with Caylee, it was a loving relationship and no one provided evidence to the contrary

...

Yeah, the behavior was bizarre, but what I took from that is that the family was very dysfunctional. Because they were so dysfunctional, that was the norm for them. Casey didn't just start lying for the first 31 days [after Caylee disappeared]. She had been lying for the past two years...I felt it was the norm for her

I guess it came down to the fact that the prosecution couldn't even prove that a homicide occurred; a jury can hardly convict someone of murder if they can't even be convinced that a murder took place, looks like accidental drowning is the most likely cause of death.

Bull****, they were idiots. It doesn't matter if there is "reasonable doubt" what matters is putting that child-killer in prison! The jurors should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, they shouldn't have kept an "open mind" about it. They at least should have become a hung jury and gone for a mistrial so this murderer would have to go back to trial.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #111 on: July 06, 2011, 02:08:09 PM »

Quote
Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest?  You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest.

I actually live about 90 mins fromWest Virginia and its not as prevalent as folks would make it seem, though it does happen.

Quote
However, those born due to incest face greater health issues and premature death
So could the same be said for crack babies? Premies?

Quote
The first number of witnesses were Casey's friend and every time that they said they saw Casey with Caylee, it was a loving relationship and no one provided evidence to the contrary
I doubt very seriously many abusers drop kick their kids in public. I know it didnt happen to me like that.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 06, 2011, 02:09:12 PM »

That DOESN'T give the mother the right to kill her own child! Don't you see that?

Are you related to Nancy Grace?   Huh

So what if a child is sick, retarded, or in risk of premature death? That absolutely never gives us the right to take their life, EVER!

No one should kill a child or anyone for that matter.  Your eye for an eye mentality is compromising your religious position....

Abortion and filicide are NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY SITUATION, EVER!!!!

Tone it down.   police
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #113 on: July 06, 2011, 02:10:54 PM »

Oh well, she will commit another crime, she has 60-65 years left in her life. That is a long time to screw up again and be dealt the justice that should have been done before.

It took OJ only 12 years to commit another crime. Criminals inevitably end up back in trouble. Considering that Casey is a chronic liar and has already gotten away with one murder, I can definitely see her winding back up in front of a judge again.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #114 on: July 06, 2011, 02:12:03 PM »

That DOESN'T give the mother the right to kill her own child! Don't you see that?

Are you related to Nancy Grace?   Huh

So what if a child is sick, retarded, or in risk of premature death? That absolutely never gives us the right to take their life, EVER!

No one should kill a child or anyone for that matter.  Your eye for an eye mentality is compromising your religious position....

Abortion and filicide are NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY SITUATION, EVER!!!!

Tone it down.   police

I'm not calling for an eye for an eye. I've never said I thought she should put to death. Justice needs to be served. I believe life in prison is adequate enough.

Also, to explain my position on ostracizing/shunning her... She murdered her child, then immediately went out and started partying, drinking, dancing, doing things she would have done prior to having her child. She clearly seeks to be a socialite and to live a life like that. She needs to be deprived of that, and so whenever she seeks to "party it up", those people should immediately ignore her and/or throw her out of the party/establishment. You are ostracizing/shunning her because she seeks to be like a socialite (and that is probably one reason she murdered her child) and so you are depriving her of that lifestyle.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:14:58 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #115 on: July 06, 2011, 02:14:22 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #116 on: July 06, 2011, 02:15:04 PM »

Quote
Have you ever been to West Virginia or Appalachia where there are generations after generations of people conceived in incest?  You are correct in that a child conceived in incest is no less valuable to the Lord and no less deserving of life than someone not conceived in incest.

I actually live about 90 mins fromWest Virginia and its not as prevalent as folks would make it seem, though it does happen.

The State has cracked down on incest due to the costs associated with health problems.  Your points about crack babies and premature babies are well taken; however, since society is now programmed to accept marriages, familes and children as disposable items, the Government has to ensure that parents do not blatantly kill their children (or spouses killing each other) to avoid any responsibility for taking care of them via child support, division of marital property and alimony respectively. 
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,529


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #117 on: July 06, 2011, 02:15:18 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

Insurance companies use a Life Value calculation that I thought was used in court as well. I could be wrong. They have a formula to come up with the financial value of a person. It depends and earnings, education, age, etc etc... Kinda cold but probably accurate.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #118 on: July 06, 2011, 02:16:58 PM »

That DOESN'T give the mother the right to kill her own child! Don't you see that?

Are you related to Nancy Grace?   Huh

So what if a child is sick, retarded, or in risk of premature death? That absolutely never gives us the right to take their life, EVER!

No one should kill a child or anyone for that matter.  Your eye for an eye mentality is compromising your religious position....

Abortion and filicide are NEVER EVER JUSTIFIED IN ANY SITUATION, EVER!!!!

Tone it down.   police

I'm not calling for an eye for an eye. I've never said I thought she should put to death. Justice needs to be served. I believe life in prison is adequate enough.

Justice was served, go back and read what you've been writing, you're demanding a blood sacrifice, not justice.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #119 on: July 06, 2011, 02:17:36 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:19:36 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #120 on: July 06, 2011, 02:19:22 PM »

You fail to see why this troubles me? So, if the state can't win a criminal case, individuals should then bring a civil case where the standards of evidence are more in the prosecution's favor?  Can you imagine if that happened every time the state lost a jury trial?  Granted,  I know such will not happen.  But, that would really distort the sense of equality under the law.  If the state fails and if you have money, sue them!  Double jeopardy is a check on an overzealous state to deprive the individual of his/her constitutional liberties, but just because the state fails does not grant an individual the responsibility to carry out what the state could not.

That being said, aren't we already in an over-litigious country as it is? Do we really need MORE trials?

Okay, I think I follow.

The right to bring a civil action belongs to the "victim", though, not the state. Indeed, where the state declines to bring a criminal prosecution for lack of evidence or some more nefarious reason, the civil suit is often the only remedy available to the victim (and arguably the only means of punishing the wrong-doer).

Also, the stress of being indicted for a criminal offence is arguably not as great as the threat of having to hand over some money. Doesn't the double jeopardy principle exist to spare the accused from the pain of having to live out a criminal trial all over again? A civil suit is a different creature to a criminal trial, though I'm sure it is quite stressful being sued!

I doubt a civil lawsuit will even be an issue here because of a fundamental difference with the OJ trial: OJ actually had money to loose. This young girl didn't have much to start out with and has spent the last two and a half years in jail and, as the old saying goes, you can't get milk from a turnip.

With that said, I do have a fundamental objection to our system of torts. Torts should be restricted to real and proven financial loss. So to apply to a wrongful death lawsuit, if someone were responsible for a family's primary breadwinner's death, the family should be able to sue to for an amount comparable to lost wages...but for the loss of a child, yes there is great emotional harm done, but limited financial harm, in fact the family's financial state is probably improved without having to care for the child so there should be no standing for a civil lawsuit. I know it sounds cold, but we are in dire need of tort reform and some pragmatic reforms would benefit our entire economy from small businesses to the healthcare industry.

But even then, being able to bring a civil lawsuit against someone for a crime of which they were acquitted in criminal court does smack of double jeopardy, just like the feds being able to bring a civil rights charge against an individual that was acquitted of the same crime by the state court smacks of double jeopardy. Both of these are anomalies in our legal system that have arisen from the mob's desire for revenge rather than from a well ordered system of justice.

Insurance companies use a Life Value calculation that I thought was used in court as well. I could be wrong. They have a formula to come up with the financial value of a person. It depends and earnings, education, age, etc etc... Kinda cold but probably accurate.

They do use it in court, as they should; what I object to is adding money punitive and 'pain and suffering' judgements to the base amount. That's what's caused our tort system to spin out of control and allows people to get 2 million dollars for spilling their coffee on their lap and drives the cost of health care up to unrealistic amounts.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #121 on: July 06, 2011, 02:24:42 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #122 on: July 06, 2011, 02:25:25 PM »

Also, to explain my position on ostracizing/shunning her... She murdered her child, then immediately went out and started partying, drinking, dancing, doing things she would have done prior to having her child. She clearly seeks to be a socialite and to live a life like that.

Not everyone mourns the same way.  No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted.  No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

She needs to be deprived of that,

Being in protective custody for almost 3 years isn't being deprived enough?   Huh

and so whenever she seeks to "party it up", those people should immediately ignore her and/or throw her out of the party/establishment.

She has a right to party.  If her family is dysfunctional, she should leave especially if her family has some hold or control on Casey.  Casey's situation doesn't resemble Elizabeth Smart's or Jaycee Dugard's - Casey ought to seek therapy and leave her dysfunctional home.  Just as Elizabeth and Jaycee are healing from their captive experiences (and remember that Jaycee has 2 teen-aged kids with her former captor) I believe Casey can heal, although that will take a long time.

You are ostracizing/shunning her because she seeks to be like a socialite (and that is probably one reason she murdered her child) and so you are depriving her of that lifestyle.

That didn't make any sense.   Huh
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #123 on: July 06, 2011, 02:28:44 PM »

Quote
The State has cracked down on incest due to the costs associated with health problems.  Your points about crack babies and premature babies are well taken; however, since society is now programmed to accept marriages, familes and children as disposable items, the Government has to ensure that parents do not blatantly kill their children (or spouses killing each other) to avoid any responsibility for taking care of them via child support, division of marital property and alimony respectively
I understand you view on this and agree that it is, unfortunately, a sign of the times.

Quote
Insurance companies use a Life Value calculation that I thought was used in court as well. I could be wrong. They have a formula to come up with the financial value of a person. It depends and earnings, education, age, etc etc... Kinda cold but probably accurate.

I do this for a living and let me tell you....frighteningly accurate....especially when they think you're gonna die.

I used to believe in the Death Penalty (I pretty much hold the belief that the state does not own my life and therefore, is illogical for them to take it from me) but I gotta say that in some instances, I would not be so upset if well.....*ahem*

Quote
Not everyone mourns the same way.  No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted.  No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

Could have been tears of happiness too.
Quote
Not everyone mourns the same way
True, but some things are innate to people in general, and smiling, having a great time goofing off while your child is missing is usually not one of them. I wont say she DID IT, but I do think she knows alot more than she's saying....maybe there was a pay off, or someone did her a favor, but she is not innocent in this, morally speaking, by a long shot.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #124 on: July 06, 2011, 02:31:02 PM »

Also, to explain my position on ostracizing/shunning her... She murdered her child, then immediately went out and started partying, drinking, dancing, doing things she would have done prior to having her child. She clearly seeks to be a socialite and to live a life like that.

Not everyone mourns the same way.  No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted.  No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

She needs to be deprived of that,

Being in protective custody for almost 3 years isn't being deprived enough?   Huh

and so whenever she seeks to "party it up", those people should immediately ignore her and/or throw her out of the party/establishment.

She has a right to party.  If her family is dysfunctional, she should leave especially if her family has some hold or control on Casey.  Casey's situation doesn't resemble Elizabeth Smart's or Jaycee Dugard's - Casey ought to seek therapy and leave her dysfunctional home.  Just as Elizabeth and Jaycee are healing from their captive experiences (and remember that Jaycee has 2 teen-aged kids with her former captor) I believe Casey can heal, although that will take a long time.

You are ostracizing/shunning her because she seeks to be like a socialite (and that is probably one reason she murdered her child) and so you are depriving her of that lifestyle.

That didn't make any sense.   Huh


It makes absolutely perfect sense. Listen... Even if she has issues, that doesn't excuse her partying after her child dies. Have you seen those pictures? Have you seen her behavior?

No, being in custody isn't being deprived enough. She should be deprived of "partying" until she proves she didn't kill her child, or unless she admits she did.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #125 on: July 06, 2011, 02:33:23 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 02:34:41 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #126 on: July 06, 2011, 02:36:18 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #127 on: July 06, 2011, 02:38:00 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #128 on: July 06, 2011, 02:40:49 PM »

True, but some things are innate to people in general, and smiling, having a great time goofing off while your child is missing is usually not one of them. I wont say she DID IT, but I do think she knows alot more than she's saying....maybe there was a pay off, or someone did her a favor, but she is not innocent in this, morally speaking, by a long shot.

People deal with mourning in different ways, one way is to try and distract ones self. And drinking is a very common way for people to deal with death and loss, I've spent many nights at the bar with people who have just lost a loved one after a heart attack or a long battle with cancer, it helps to have a few drinks, be in public, socialize, give your life some semblance of normality, help you to, at lest temporarily, forget your despair; and yes, I've also known many people who go out and have a series of one night stands when mourning, it gives them a feeling of intimacy, a connection to another human being that allows them to distract themselves from the pain of having just lost a relative with whom they also had a intimate (though generally non-sexual) relationship.

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #129 on: July 06, 2011, 02:42:26 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #130 on: July 06, 2011, 02:57:28 PM »

Quote
People deal with mourning in different ways, one way is to try and distract ones self. And drinking is a very common way for people to deal with death and loss, I've spent many nights at the bar with people who have just lost a loved one after a heart attack or a long battle with cancer, it helps to have a few drinks, be in public, socialize, give your life some semblance of normality, help you to, at lest temporarily, forget your despair; and yes, I've also known many people who go out and have a series of one night stands when mourning, it gives them a feeling of intimacy, a connection to another human being that allows them to distract themselves from the pain of having just lost a relative with whom they also had a intimate (though generally non-sexual) relationship.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point. However, what about also entering a "hot body" contest? I believe she admitted to that too. She was convicted of lying to the police on multiple counts. Therefore, she had to have been hiding something.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #131 on: July 06, 2011, 02:59:39 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)
He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #132 on: July 06, 2011, 03:09:02 PM »

Quote
People deal with mourning in different ways, one way is to try and distract ones self. And drinking is a very common way for people to deal with death and loss, I've spent many nights at the bar with people who have just lost a loved one after a heart attack or a long battle with cancer, it helps to have a few drinks, be in public, socialize, give your life some semblance of normality, help you to, at lest temporarily, forget your despair; and yes, I've also known many people who go out and have a series of one night stands when mourning, it gives them a feeling of intimacy, a connection to another human being that allows them to distract themselves from the pain of having just lost a relative with whom they also had a intimate (though generally non-sexual) relationship.

I understand what you're saying, and agree to a point. However, what about also entering a "hot body" contest?

She wanted to be the center of attention, attention that would distract her from what she was going through. Death has long been a complex part of our emotional existence, we've developed thousands of different religions to try to explain and understand it, many of which are far stranger than a young girl wanting to be in public, socialize, and feel some semblance of intimacy. If we're to start convicting people in court based on their preferred way of mourning, I fear none of us are safe.

Quote
I believe she admitted to that too. She was convicted of lying to the police on multiple counts. Therefore, she had to have been hiding something.

Yes, she lied, but the problem is that we have no idea why. Was it fear because she thought the circumstances looked suspicious? Maybe her abusive father did it, if the accusations made against him in open court are true, it's likely he holds considerable sway over her and had long conditioned her to lie in his defense. Maybe it was an accident that happened when she confronted her father about abusing her daughter? Maybe her daughter was being abused and as a long victim of abuse killed her daughter to spare her the abuse? Maybe she is just a sociopath?

The problem is that those all remain viable possibilities, even after the evidence was submitted. The prosecution was trying to convince the Jury of the last narrative, but the evidence just wasn't there. It's the prosecutor's job to prove their narrative beyond a reasonable doubt, they failed to do their job and the Jury rendered the appropriate verdict.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #133 on: July 06, 2011, 03:17:02 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)
He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.

No, justice was not done, he was murdered in cold blood and the murderer is living free when he should be brought to trial for his crimes and apparently he had many accomplices who should also face the justice system; only before a court of law can their guilt or innocence be determined. And, frankly, no guilty man is prosecuted 22 times and gets off every time; it's obvious that a prosecutor was out to get him, even though he had no real evidence of any wrong doing and likely even knew he was not guilty. Someone had it in for him and kept throwing charges against the courts until one finally stuck, and even that case was so poorly constructed that he was released by the appellate court. What you have shown is our judicial system at its worst, a personal vendetta ruining the life of an obviously innocent man. Thankfully, our system worked better in this case.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #134 on: July 06, 2011, 03:35:29 PM »

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.

Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably ain't so weird after all. Given my experience with mathematicians and Christians.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #135 on: July 06, 2011, 03:36:29 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)
He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.

No, justice was not done, he was murdered in cold blood and the murderer is living free when he should be brought to trial for his crimes and apparently he had many accomplices who should also face the justice system; only before a court of law can their guilt or innocence be determined. And, frankly, no guilty man is prosecuted 22 times and gets off every time; it's obvious that a prosecutor was out to get him, even though he had no real evidence of any wrong doing and likely even knew he was not guilty. Someone had it in for him and kept throwing charges against the courts until one finally stuck, and even that case was so poorly constructed that he was released by the appellate court. What you have shown is our judicial system at its worst, a personal vendetta ruining the life of an obviously innocent man. Thankfully, our system worked better in this case.

Wow, I'm really glad you have absolutely nothing to do with our justice system and it's laws.

You apparently don't know anything about the case of Ken McElroy. What you don't know (and what I purposely failed to mention) is that in every one of the 22 cases, he had deliberately threatened the victims. Sometimes showing up with a firearm (as in the last case) or simply stalking the person. In one case he even visited the family of a victim and threatened all of them. He was known throughout town as the "town bully".

Consider this... He had over a dozen children as a result of his abuses. His wife was only 12 years old when he met her and impregnated her when she was 14, forcing her to drop out of 9th grade. She had to live with McElroy and another woman, eventually her and this other women fled to her parent's home, where McElroy subsequently shot the family dog and burned the house down. Eventually, after more threats and abuse, the charges were dropped. That is just one instance...

The man was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and everyone in that town knew he was. But again, while the legal system worked theoretically, it failed practically to deliver proper justice. Consider also that this is a town of about 342 people. This case was 30 years ago, so it was probably a little smaller. That meant over 10% of the population of the town witnessed the murder, but said they saw nothing. 40 people is a lot to be "accomplices" in an unjust killing.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 03:36:49 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #136 on: July 06, 2011, 03:40:18 PM »

She wanted to be the center of attention, attention that would distract her from what she was going through. Death has long been a complex part of our emotional existence, we've developed thousands of different religions to try to explain and understand it, many of which are far stranger than a young girl wanting to be in public, socialize, and feel some semblance of intimacy. If we're to start convicting people in court based on their preferred way of mourning, I fear none of us are safe.

Another point for the atheist exhibiting more Christian charity than some Christians.

GiC, sorry you are going to burn in hell. You seem to be a really smart and nice guy. //:=|
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #137 on: July 06, 2011, 03:42:19 PM »

Devin, what could of government DO you want?  Do you want one where whenever the police arrest someone they go before the judge for sentencing, with the assumption that they are guilty, and then we stick 'em in prison until they can prove that it wasn't them?  Is that what you want?  While I know you don't agree that 100 guilty people should go free so that an innocent person doesn't wind up in prison, that doesn't change the fact that every time someone is wrongly convicted, that means the real perpetrator of the crime is out there and able to commit more crimes.  If, for example, there is a string of murders, and the police arrest John Q, and he cannot prove that he is innocent, even though there is doubt that he is guilty, your system would have him thrown in prison until he can prove that he didn't do it.  While he is attempting to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent (instead of the prosecutor proving beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty), the real murderer is out there and free to commit more murders.  He may lay low for a while, or move to another part of the country, but he is out there and free.  Is that justice?

You also have yet to prove that Casey is guilty.  All you've said, when the question's been brought up, is that the jury is stupid and obviously wrong and Casey should be in prison.  That is no more a good argument than me saying, if she were found guilty, that the jury is stupid and obviously wrong and Casey shouldn't be in prison.  You've yet to prove anything.  I should also think that the jury, who has spent every minute of the trial in the courtroom and spent many hours deliberating together (not to mention the time they must have spent in their rooms thinking about the day's events) over the trial, should be more able to get the right answer than you.  Keep in mind that every juror voted that she was not guilty.  Not just a majority, but every one.  Otherwise the jury would have been hung.

Oh, and I didn't realize that if 40 people work together to cover up a murder, they aren't accomplices.  You should let the mob know, I'm sure they'd love to use that the next time there's a big mob trial.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #138 on: July 06, 2011, 03:43:31 PM »

Chuck Norris? I am crying. Please don't tell me there is a "real Chuck Norris" involved in this case.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 03:43:46 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,010


WWW
« Reply #139 on: July 06, 2011, 03:44:39 PM »

Quote
Not everyone mourns the same way.  No one is a mind reader and Casey gave off uncertain body language especially at the news she was acquitted.  No smiling, no exuberant celebration ... just tears and sadness.

Could have been tears of happiness too.

or the tears of returning back to a dysfunctional household - a place she avoided for almost 3 years while in protective custody at the county jail.

Quote
Not everyone mourns the same way
True, but some things are innate to people in general, and smiling, having a great time goofing off while your child is missing is usually not one of them. I wont say she DID IT, but I do think she knows alot more than she's saying....maybe there was a pay off, or someone did her a favor, but she is not innocent in this, morally speaking, by a long shot.

It's one thing to silence witnesses from behind bars; however, to have deep and dark family secrets which are never exposed to the light, in my opinion, is worse than the "stop snitching" mentality prevalent in urban neighborhoods.  For all we know, the time Casey spent in jail was her family's way of "punishing" Casey because Casey allowed Caylee's death to come to light.  There are laws on the books that say that there is no obligation to report a death to the authorities - call the doctor and the funeral home - doctor signs a death certificate and family buries the deceased.

I don't know who are the sicker individuals; the couple who kept Jaycee Dugard hostage for 18 years or George & Cindy Anthony.   Huh
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 03:55:44 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #140 on: July 06, 2011, 03:45:24 PM »

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.

Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably ain't so weird after all. Given my experience with mathematicians and Christians.

Given the standard of proof required in mathematics, compared to which even fields like Physics and Chemistry seem like voodoo, it shouldn't be too surprising. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,220


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #141 on: July 06, 2011, 03:47:17 PM »

Quote
One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.


Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

****grabs his piece of humble pie and grabs the whip cream****

You're right of course.

primuspilus
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #142 on: July 06, 2011, 03:53:41 PM »

Devin, what could of government DO you want?  Do you want one where whenever the police arrest someone they go before the judge for sentencing, with the assumption that they are guilty, and then we stick 'em in prison until they can prove that it wasn't them?  Is that what you want?  While I know you don't agree that 100 guilty people should go free so that an innocent person doesn't wind up in prison, that doesn't change the fact that every time someone is wrongly convicted, that means the real perpetrator of the crime is out there and able to commit more crimes.  If, for example, there is a string of murders, and the police arrest John Q, and he cannot prove that he is innocent, even though there is doubt that he is guilty, your system would have him thrown in prison until he can prove that he didn't do it.  While he is attempting to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent (instead of the prosecutor proving beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty), the real murderer is out there and free to commit more murders.  He may lay low for a while, or move to another part of the country, but he is out there and free.  Is that justice?

You also have yet to prove that Casey is guilty.  All you've said, when the question's been brought up, is that the jury is stupid and obviously wrong and Casey should be in prison.  That is no more a good argument than me saying, if she were found guilty, that the jury is stupid and obviously wrong and Casey shouldn't be in prison.  You've yet to prove anything.  I should also think that the jury, who has spent every minute of the trial in the courtroom and spent many hours deliberating together (not to mention the time they must have spent in their rooms thinking about the day's events) over the trial, should be more able to get the right answer than you.  Keep in mind that every juror voted that she was not guilty.  Not just a majority, but every one.  Otherwise the jury would have been hung.

Oh, and I didn't realize that if 40 people work together to cover up a murder, they aren't accomplices.  You should let the mob know, I'm sure they'd love to use that the next time there's a big mob trial.

They aren't accomplices if it was a just kill...

If someone abused by someone for years, and suddenly they kill that person. Does that mean they are guilty of murder and belong in prison? Certainly not, because it was a just kill...

This man was a repeat offender that had hurt many people, and was threatening them to keep himself out of prison. (not to mention he had a hot shot lawyer from the city) So the people had to take matters into their own hands and deal out justice themselves. The law forced them to become vigilantes, and thus, while they did kill him, it was a just kill.

When you have a legal system that lets 100 guilty people go free for the sake of 1 innocent one, and when you have a legal system that can be beat if you have enough money, then sometimes you have to take the law into your own hands.

Vigilante justice often has to occur when the legal system fails.

Think about it another way... Imagine your daughter is being physically abused by her husband, who you know could easily escape charges in court. What do you do? Personally, I would get my sons (if I had sons) and march right over and beat the living hell out of him and tell him that if he ever touches her again, he will have more to worry about than a simple beating. Did we break the law? Technically, yes we did. But it was just.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 04:01:34 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #143 on: July 06, 2011, 04:02:52 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)
He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.

No, justice was not done, he was murdered in cold blood and the murderer is living free when he should be brought to trial for his crimes and apparently he had many accomplices who should also face the justice system; only before a court of law can their guilt or innocence be determined. And, frankly, no guilty man is prosecuted 22 times and gets off every time; it's obvious that a prosecutor was out to get him, even though he had no real evidence of any wrong doing and likely even knew he was not guilty. Someone had it in for him and kept throwing charges against the courts until one finally stuck, and even that case was so poorly constructed that he was released by the appellate court. What you have shown is our judicial system at its worst, a personal vendetta ruining the life of an obviously innocent man. Thankfully, our system worked better in this case.

Wow, I'm really glad you have absolutely nothing to do with our justice system and it's laws.

You apparently don't know anything about the case of Ken McElroy. What you don't know (and what I purposely failed to mention) is that in every one of the 22 cases, he had deliberately threatened the victims. Sometimes showing up with a firearm (as in the last case) or simply stalking the person. In one case he even visited the family of a victim and threatened all of them. He was known throughout town as the "town bully".

Consider this... He had over a dozen children as a result of his abuses. His wife was only 12 years old when he met her and impregnated her when she was 14, forcing her to drop out of 9th grade. She had to live with McElroy and another woman, eventually her and this other women fled to her parent's home, where McElroy subsequently shot the family dog and burned the house down. Eventually, after more threats and abuse, the charges were dropped. That is just one instance...

The man was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and everyone in that town knew he was. But again, while the legal system worked theoretically, it failed practically to deliver proper justice. Consider also that this is a town of about 342 people. This case was 30 years ago, so it was probably a little smaller. That meant over 10% of the population of the town witnessed the murder, but said they saw nothing. 40 people is a lot to be "accomplices" in an unjust killing.

So he had a hard upbringing and acted out in a manner that made people not like him, so what? The reality is that even a mafia boss would have a hard time winning 22 straight jury trials, with all his resources to intimidate witnesses...and you're telling me that a single man intimidated all his own witnesses 22 different times to get away with it? Yeah right...LOL. What's the average conviction rate in a jury trial? I know if varies by jurisdiction, but I've heard the number 50/50 thrown out there before. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is only a mere 20% chance of convicting a guilty person of their crime before the court, that means a 80% chance of getting off for a single trial, but this guy had 22 trials 80%^22 equals a mere 0.7% chance he was actually guilty...in short, he didn't do it.

It's obvious that the prosecutor was out to get him and the propaganda put out by the prosecutor's office turned the town against him. From the numbers, it's obvious that the prosecutor was corrupt...but, of course, that's not enough for a conviction...there's always the possibility, remote though it may be, that the prosecutor was just incompetent.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #144 on: July 06, 2011, 04:04:14 PM »

She wanted to be the center of attention, attention that would distract her from what she was going through. Death has long been a complex part of our emotional existence, we've developed thousands of different religions to try to explain and understand it, many of which are far stranger than a young girl wanting to be in public, socialize, and feel some semblance of intimacy. If we're to start convicting people in court based on their preferred way of mourning, I fear none of us are safe.

Another point for the atheist exhibiting more Christian charity than some Christians.

GiC, sorry you are going to burn in hell. You seem to be a really smart and nice guy. //:=|

C'est la vie, at least I'll have plenty of company. Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #145 on: July 06, 2011, 04:11:50 PM »

Again GiC and SolEX, just keep having faith in our f'ed up justice system...

Sometimes I really wished our justice system allowed vigilante justice. So where the law fails, the people won't... (I'm not saying she deserves to die)

The jury are idiots, can't you see that? Just like in the OJ Simpson case. That rat bastard murdered his wife, but the jury were biased idiots who couldn't see that. The jury and their ruling isn't infallible and you should never, EVER treat it as such.

Our judicial system absolutely sucks at dealing out true justice. Justice is far more important than having "proper" evidence for conviction. A bastard that murders someone shouldn't get off just because the prosecution fails to collect enough evidence.

Personally, they should remove double-jeopardy, and rather instate some sort of rule that says you can't be tried for the same crime for 5 years, for a maximum of maybe 3 times. That allows a criminal to be tried again when new evidence arises and when new technology is created that can prove their guilt.

Maybe in 5-10 years, we will have technology to prove that Casey Anthony was guilty... The prosecution would have had no clue that technology would be invented to do so, they were seeking a conviction and justice. Unfortunately the legal system failed and the jury were idiots. Now she cannot be tried ever again, even if she admits it, and even if evidence arises that proves her guilt. Double-jeopardy is absolutely f'ing retarded. Yes it could be abused, but that is why you put guidelines, not a ban.

Our justice system is a piece of crap and you know it, everyone knows it. You just have to play the system right and erase enough evidence. Personally we need to move to something that makes criminals pay, regardless of if they've been tried before.

WOW...just wow.

You do know that these protections were put in place because the state is given a legal monopoly on violence; it is the state we should fear, not some random defendant. The social cost of one woman getting away with murdering her child is extraordinary small compared to granting power to a vast state bureaucracy with untold resources to deprive you of life and liberty. Are you afraid for your personal safety now that she was acquitted? Are the people of Florida now going to have to live their lives under fear and oppression? Of course not, the social cost of a false acquittal is very small, it may be slightly bigger in the case of something like organized crime, but it still wouldn't come close to the social cost of eroding our fundamental rights and protections from the state.

Now, if you were denied the right to due process and the protection against double jeopardy would you be afraid? You may or may not, but you should be, if a prosecutor has a grudge against you or of a prosecutor's friend has a grudge against you (as has happened to my grandfather) then you would be out of luck. He could keep shopping around until he found a favorable jury, retrying you if necessary, and you would have no recourse, you would just have to hope and pray that you got a good jury each time and your life would be made a living hell.

So think before you advocate such sweeping policy changes, to satisfy a passing desire for blood lust and vengeance you're willing to cast 300 million people into a lifetime of servitude, fear, and oppression. The old maxim, 'It's better let 100 guilty people go free than convict a single innocent person' came about for a good reason; it's the power of the state, not a false acquittal, that we should be most concerned about.

Let me guess, your a Libertarian right?

Now, now...save that for the politics forum.

Quote
I disagree, it's better to have 100 guilty people in prison and 1 innocent in prison rather than allowing those 100 to go free. The 1 innocent person can always have an opportunity to get out. As we see now, we have the technology to get them out later on.

It's much better to have 100 guilty people in prison, even if 1 is innocent, than to let those 100 out into the community to cause further havoc and to live free lives.

Ever hear the story of Ken McElroy? Look it up... While I don't agree with killing a person, it illustrates a situation where the legal system failed... Repeatedly... Then the person was finally brought to justice by his peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy

Fortunately, our founding fathers would disagree with you...they actually had respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, respect for human dignity. They looked at the governments of the world and decided they were flawed, that fundamental rights were more important than social order, that everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

However, with that said, there are many legal scholars in China today who would agree with your position, perhaps the individual rights and liberties granted by their system would be more to your liking?

I don't hold up our founder fathers like other people seem to do. They were deists and they were far from being honorable men. I believe the world needs to move beyond that sort of Democracy and needs to move forward, not hold onto some flawed way of thinking held by these founding fathers.

I believe the U.S. Government should make significant changes. I don't hold onto some "purism" that the founding fathers should be held up and used as a guide for our current government.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, I'm just relieved that it doesn't carry any weight.

Really neither does yours...

Nope, but mine has been vindicated by the courts.

Which might theoretically work, but practically they fail, as in the Ken McElroy case.

He had be prosecuted 22 times, 21 of those without sufficient evidence and once released on bail. After that one trial, when released on bond, he went and threatened the person that he was accused of trying to kill. The next day, he showed up at a bar, walked outside, got in his truck, and was shot by 1 or more gunmen. There were over 40 witnesses and all of them said that they didn't see anything. (save for his wife)
He had raped, abused, committing arson, was a cattle rustler, a pedophile and had robbed many people. The law theoretically worked because there wasn't ever sufficient evidence to convict him. So finally, vigilante justice had to succeed where the law (though it worked theoretically) had failed. Sadly it ended in his death, but justice was done...

The point is not that vigilantes should be allowed to kill freely. The point is that the law worked according to theory, as they couldn't sufficiently convict him. But in all practicality, it had failed, forcing the townspeople to take matters into their own hands.

No, justice was not done, he was murdered in cold blood and the murderer is living free when he should be brought to trial for his crimes and apparently he had many accomplices who should also face the justice system; only before a court of law can their guilt or innocence be determined. And, frankly, no guilty man is prosecuted 22 times and gets off every time; it's obvious that a prosecutor was out to get him, even though he had no real evidence of any wrong doing and likely even knew he was not guilty. Someone had it in for him and kept throwing charges against the courts until one finally stuck, and even that case was so poorly constructed that he was released by the appellate court. What you have shown is our judicial system at its worst, a personal vendetta ruining the life of an obviously innocent man. Thankfully, our system worked better in this case.

Wow, I'm really glad you have absolutely nothing to do with our justice system and it's laws.

You apparently don't know anything about the case of Ken McElroy. What you don't know (and what I purposely failed to mention) is that in every one of the 22 cases, he had deliberately threatened the victims. Sometimes showing up with a firearm (as in the last case) or simply stalking the person. In one case he even visited the family of a victim and threatened all of them. He was known throughout town as the "town bully".

Consider this... He had over a dozen children as a result of his abuses. His wife was only 12 years old when he met her and impregnated her when she was 14, forcing her to drop out of 9th grade. She had to live with McElroy and another woman, eventually her and this other women fled to her parent's home, where McElroy subsequently shot the family dog and burned the house down. Eventually, after more threats and abuse, the charges were dropped. That is just one instance...

The man was guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and everyone in that town knew he was. But again, while the legal system worked theoretically, it failed practically to deliver proper justice. Consider also that this is a town of about 342 people. This case was 30 years ago, so it was probably a little smaller. That meant over 10% of the population of the town witnessed the murder, but said they saw nothing. 40 people is a lot to be "accomplices" in an unjust killing.

So he had a hard upbringing and acted out in a manner that made people not like him, so what? The reality is that even a mafia boss would have a hard time winning 22 straight jury trials, with all his resources to intimidate witnesses...and you're telling me that a single man intimidated all his own witnesses 22 different times to get away with it? Yeah right...LOL. What's the average conviction rate in a jury trial? I know if varies by jurisdiction, but I've heard the number 50/50 thrown out there before. But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is only a mere 20% chance of convicting a guilty person of their crime before the court, that means a 80% chance of getting off for a single trial, but this guy had 22 trials 80%^22 equals a mere 0.7% chance he was actually guilty...in short, he didn't do it.

It's obvious that the prosecutor was out to get him and the propaganda put out by the prosecutor's office turned the town against him. From the numbers, it's obvious that the prosecutor was corrupt...but, of course, that's not enough for a conviction...there's always the possibility, remote though it may be, that the prosecutor was just incompetent.

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

How hypocritical... You claim he must have been innocent, but after an FBI Investigation, they didn't find anyone guilty of his murder either. Hmm...

http://nodaway.countyonline.us/2010/06/22/in-broad-daylight-who-killed-ken-mcelroy/

From the article:
Quote
"Forty-five townspeople witnessed the killing. All denied seeing the shooters. After three grand juries and an eight-month FBI investigation, no one was indicted. Twenty-five years later, still no one has been charged with the murder." ... "Ken Rex was much more than a town bully. He had all of Northwest Missouri terrorized. Even the cops and judges were scared of him. Maybe, as the townspeople say, he needed killing; the main regret seems to be the way he was finished.'"
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 04:14:43 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #146 on: July 06, 2011, 04:21:10 PM »

Devin, what could of government DO you want?  Do you want one where whenever the police arrest someone they go before the judge for sentencing, with the assumption that they are guilty, and then we stick 'em in prison until they can prove that it wasn't them?  Is that what you want?  While I know you don't agree that 100 guilty people should go free so that an innocent person doesn't wind up in prison, that doesn't change the fact that every time someone is wrongly convicted, that means the real perpetrator of the crime is out there and able to commit more crimes.  If, for example, there is a string of murders, and the police arrest John Q, and he cannot prove that he is innocent, even though there is doubt that he is guilty, your system would have him thrown in prison until he can prove that he didn't do it.  While he is attempting to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is innocent (instead of the prosecutor proving beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty), the real murderer is out there and free to commit more murders.  He may lay low for a while, or move to another part of the country, but he is out there and free.  Is that justice?

You also have yet to prove that Casey is guilty.  All you've said, when the question's been brought up, is that the jury is stupid and obviously wrong and Casey should be in prison.  That is no more a good argument than me saying, if she were found guilty, that the jury is stupid and obviously wrong and Casey shouldn't be in prison.  You've yet to prove anything.  I should also think that the jury, who has spent every minute of the trial in the courtroom and spent many hours deliberating together (not to mention the time they must have spent in their rooms thinking about the day's events) over the trial, should be more able to get the right answer than you.  Keep in mind that every juror voted that she was not guilty.  Not just a majority, but every one.  Otherwise the jury would have been hung.

Oh, and I didn't realize that if 40 people work together to cover up a murder, they aren't accomplices.  You should let the mob know, I'm sure they'd love to use that the next time there's a big mob trial.

They aren't accomplices if it was a just kill...

Trying to categorize murder into 'just murder' and 'unjust murder' is a very dangerous precedent because then you have to entrust this determination to some moral police...they're trying this system in Saudi Arabia today and I know I'm not in any hurry to move there. The question has to be whether the situation socially justifies the use of force and other than in the case where the state, which has been given a monopoly on violence, murders and individual the only situation where murder is considered acceptable is in the case of self defense; yes, there are other circumstances that can be taken into account to lessen the severity of the consequences, but if you stand up and admit you killed someone, the only way you're going to be able to get off scott-free is if you can demonstrate that it was in self defense and your life or the life of an innocent bystander was in eminent danger.

The case you pointed out was not self-defense, no one was in eminent danger, it was cold blooded murder, plain and simple.

Quote
This man was a repeat offender that had hurt many people, and was threatening them to keep himself out of prison. (not to mention he had a hot shot lawyer from the city) So the people had to take matters into their own hands and deal out justice themselves. The law forced them to become vigilantes, and thus, while they did kill him, it was a just kill.

No, he was ACCUSED of multiple offences, that is VERY VERY different than being a repeat offender who has been CONVICTED of multiple offences.

Quote
When you have a legal system that lets 100 guilty people go free for the sake of 1 innocent one, and when you have a legal system that can be beat if you have enough money, then sometimes you have to take the law into your own hands.

If they have enough evidence against you, you're going away, money or none...just ask Bernie Madoff, it wasn't lack of funds that hampered his defense. The tragedy is not that those with money can fight for their rights in court, the tragedy is that every American Citizen isn't given the same access to resources and the same defense the rich get. The trials of the rich are how trials are supposed to be, but because our legal system has failed to fully address centuries of discrimination and inequality this same constitutional right has not been equally applied to our entire population.

Quote
Vigilante justice often has to occur when the legal system fails.

Reminds me of an old English proverb: 'The mob has many heads, but no brains.'

Quote
Think about it another way... Imagine your daughter is being physically abused by her husband, who you know could easily escape charges in court. What do you do? Personally, I would get my sons (if I had sons) and march right over and beat the living hell out of him and tell him that if he ever touches her again, he will have more to worry about than a simple beating. Did we break the law? Technically, yes we did. But it was just.

Personally, I would try to get her out of the situation and try to convince her to leave him while working with law enforcement to ensure she is protected in the future. Taking the law into your own hands solves nothing, especially when you can hardly be considered an objective observer.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #147 on: July 06, 2011, 04:33:01 PM »

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

And risk upsetting a lynch mob that seems to act with impunity? I for one wouldn't step foot in that town unless I was armed to the hilt and had a couple of equally well armed friends. The people there are obviously a bunch of savage barbarians and the prosecutors will obviously try to trump up charges to get rid of people they happen to not like. I have no desire to visit that town for the same reason I have no desire to visit Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Quote
How hypocritical... You claim he must have been innocent, but after an FBI Investigation, they didn't find anyone guilty of his murder either. Hmm...

http://nodaway.countyonline.us/2010/06/22/in-broad-daylight-who-killed-ken-mcelroy/

Because of lack of evidence, because they're not willing to take the chance of accusing and convicting the wrong person when they only had his wife as a witness. The same system you're condemning is what protected that murderer. You see, unlike the local prosecutor, the federal prosecutor seemed to have some basic understand of justice and the rule of law, unlike the local prosecutor they were unwilling to throw accusations against the wall until one of them finally stuck. And though I wish they had caught his murderer, I'm glad they didn't choose some poor random individual and launch a case against him based on low-quality circumstantial evidence...like happened in the Casey Anthony case.

Of course, throughout the years many murderers have gotten off because they have been protected by the mafia; that hardly justifies the murders committed by the mafia, but it is a realization of the maxim I stated earlier, an unwillingness to, in a functioning justice system, even accidently convict the wrong person.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #148 on: July 06, 2011, 04:39:42 PM »

Devin, doesn't the New Testament tell us to obey the authorities?  Why then is it permissible for a town to murder a man?  Does the law not say that a person is not to be considered guilty until found guilty by a jury?  The jury found him not guilty over 20 times, and yet this town is still justified in murdering him? 

As well, you haven't answered my questions.  Chiefly: Why do you think you can better judge the guilt of Casey Anthony than the jurors who spent countless hours considering the case and countless more in the courtroom?  And number two is: If you dislike a system where a person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then what system would you prefer?  One where the police arrest someone and then they are immediately sentenced?  Or one where the police arrest someone, the prosecutor then decides if they are guilty, and then the judge sentences them?  What system would you prefer?  And keep in mind that every time an innocent person goes to jail, that means the actual offender is still free to offend.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #149 on: July 06, 2011, 04:40:54 PM »

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

And risk upsetting a lynch mob that seems to act with impunity? I for one wouldn't step foot in that town unless I was armed to the hilt and had a couple of equally well armed friends. The people there are obviously a bunch of savage barbarians and the prosecutors will obviously try to trump up charges to get rid of people they happen to not like. I have no desire to visit that town for the same reason I have no desire to visit Iran or Saudi Arabia

"There are no barbarians, just different people with different cultures"

Just because you are a "mathematician" doesn't mean jack s**t. You clearly have some sort of superiority complex over rural people who live simple lives.

I really wish there were an ignore feature on this forum...
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #150 on: July 06, 2011, 04:43:18 PM »

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

And risk upsetting a lynch mob that seems to act with impunity? I for one wouldn't step foot in that town unless I was armed to the hilt and had a couple of equally well armed friends. The people there are obviously a bunch of savage barbarians and the prosecutors will obviously try to trump up charges to get rid of people they happen to not like. I have no desire to visit that town for the same reason I have no desire to visit Iran or Saudi Arabia

"There are no barbarians, just different people with different cultures"

Just because you are a "mathematician" doesn't mean jack s**t. You clearly have some sort of superiority complex over rural people who live simple lives.

I really wish there were an ignore feature on this forum...

No, he just happens to think that murdering someone because they weren't found guilty is barbaric.  I would agree, and have many rural living relatives (who work at coal mines) and myself am right now in a small town of 2,000 that is about 60 miles from civilization.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #151 on: July 06, 2011, 04:48:08 PM »

Devin, doesn't the New Testament tell us to obey the authorities?  Why then is it permissible for a town to murder a man?  Does the law not say that a person is not to be considered guilty until found guilty by a jury?  The jury found him not guilty over 20 times, and yet this town is still justified in murdering him? 

As well, you haven't answered my questions.  Chiefly: Why do you think you can better judge the guilt of Casey Anthony than the jurors who spent countless hours considering the case and countless more in the courtroom?  And number two is: If you dislike a system where a person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then what system would you prefer?  One where the police arrest someone and then they are immediately sentenced?  Or one where the police arrest someone, the prosecutor then decides if they are guilty, and then the judge sentences them?  What system would you prefer?  And keep in mind that every time an innocent person goes to jail, that means the actual offender is still free to offend.

I would prefer a system that allows someone to be tried multiple times for the same offense. (although imposing a maximum) This allows the person to be tried again as more evidence arises.

I would also prefer a system that keeps the offender in custody without any opportunity for "bail". If the offender is accused of threatening a witness, that witness is put under protection and that is added to his charges.

Hearsay, and other evidence should be regarded as evidence and shouldn't be "dismissed". Also, if a scientific method isn't 100% accurate, it should still be admitted as evidence.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #152 on: July 06, 2011, 04:50:02 PM »

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

And risk upsetting a lynch mob that seems to act with impunity? I for one wouldn't step foot in that town unless I was armed to the hilt and had a couple of equally well armed friends. The people there are obviously a bunch of savage barbarians and the prosecutors will obviously try to trump up charges to get rid of people they happen to not like. I have no desire to visit that town for the same reason I have no desire to visit Iran or Saudi Arabia

"There are no barbarians, just different people with different cultures"

Just because you are a "mathematician" doesn't mean jack s**t. You clearly have some sort of superiority complex over rural people who live simple lives.

I really wish there were an ignore feature on this forum...

No, he just happens to think that murdering someone because they weren't found guilty is barbaric.  I would agree, and have many rural living relatives (who work at coal mines) and myself am right now in a small town of 2,000 that is about 60 miles from civilization.

It isn't barbaric. What is absolutely f***ing insane and asinine is how we seem to assume the d**n justice system is somehow infallible and is perfect, and that it always deals out justice. That is just stupid and no reasonable, sane person would hold that position.

It's just like the absolute idiots who said we had no right to put two bullets through Osama Bin Laden. Or those who say that we have no right to try and eliminate Qaddafi.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 04:52:41 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #153 on: July 06, 2011, 04:54:37 PM »

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

And risk upsetting a lynch mob that seems to act with impunity? I for one wouldn't step foot in that town unless I was armed to the hilt and had a couple of equally well armed friends. The people there are obviously a bunch of savage barbarians and the prosecutors will obviously try to trump up charges to get rid of people they happen to not like. I have no desire to visit that town for the same reason I have no desire to visit Iran or Saudi Arabia

"There are no barbarians, just different people with different cultures"

Just because you are a "mathematician" doesn't mean jack s**t. You clearly have some sort of superiority complex over rural people who live simple lives.

The only thing it means is that I've had years of training being objective and taking nothing for granted. It gives me no special insight on this case, it merely helps me remain objective.

Quote
I really wish there were an ignore feature on this forum...

You could just not read my posts?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #154 on: July 06, 2011, 05:06:08 PM »


It makes absolutely perfect sense. Listen... Even if she has issues, that doesn't excuse her partying after her child dies. Have you seen those pictures? Have you seen her behavior?

Her behavior =/= murdering her child.

Quote
No, being in custody isn't being deprived enough. She should be deprived of "partying" until she proves she didn't kill her child, or unless she admits she did.

It's innocent until proven guilty. She does not need to prove the opposite.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,472



« Reply #155 on: July 06, 2011, 05:20:21 PM »

Devin, doesn't the New Testament tell us to obey the authorities?  Why then is it permissible for a town to murder a man?  Does the law not say that a person is not to be considered guilty until found guilty by a jury?  The jury found him not guilty over 20 times, and yet this town is still justified in murdering him? 

As well, you haven't answered my questions.  Chiefly: Why do you think you can better judge the guilt of Casey Anthony than the jurors who spent countless hours considering the case and countless more in the courtroom?  And number two is: If you dislike a system where a person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then what system would you prefer?  One where the police arrest someone and then they are immediately sentenced?  Or one where the police arrest someone, the prosecutor then decides if they are guilty, and then the judge sentences them?  What system would you prefer?  And keep in mind that every time an innocent person goes to jail, that means the actual offender is still free to offend.

I would prefer a system that allows someone to be tried multiple times for the same offense. (although imposing a maximum) This allows the person to be tried again as more evidence arises.

I would also prefer a system that keeps the offender in custody without any opportunity for "bail". If the offender is accused of threatening a witness, that witness is put under protection and that is added to his charges.

Hearsay, and other evidence should be regarded as evidence and shouldn't be "dismissed". Also, if a scientific method isn't 100% accurate, it should still be admitted as evidence.

I agree with you on a number of points, specifically that our system has major flaws and that sometimes DIY justice is necessary but a few of your points above I find horrifying.

First, there is a reason double jeopardy is illegal.  The last thing free citizens need is for the state to have the ability to continually harass us on the same offense.  Some murderers will get off scott free but that can be remedied by having competent prosecutors and educated jurors.  One thing I would fix would be that the prosecutor and the lawyer involved in the case are not allowed to pick the jurors.  Separate attorneys should be deciding who is legible and who is not.  That would get rid of the cherry-picked jury problem.

Second, hearsay and inaccurate scientific methods should not under any circumstances be allowed as evidence.  That's how you get witchcraft trials started.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #156 on: July 06, 2011, 05:22:10 PM »

Why don't you go to Skidmore, Missouri and tell those people about all that?

And risk upsetting a lynch mob that seems to act with impunity? I for one wouldn't step foot in that town unless I was armed to the hilt and had a couple of equally well armed friends. The people there are obviously a bunch of savage barbarians and the prosecutors will obviously try to trump up charges to get rid of people they happen to not like. I have no desire to visit that town for the same reason I have no desire to visit Iran or Saudi Arabia

"There are no barbarians, just different people with different cultures"

Just because you are a "mathematician" doesn't mean jack s**t. You clearly have some sort of superiority complex over rural people who live simple lives.

I really wish there were an ignore feature on this forum...

No, he just happens to think that murdering someone because they weren't found guilty is barbaric.  I would agree, and have many rural living relatives (who work at coal mines) and myself am right now in a small town of 2,000 that is about 60 miles from civilization.

It isn't barbaric. What is absolutely f***ing insane and asinine is how we seem to assume the d**n justice system is somehow infallible and is perfect, and that it always deals out justice. That is just stupid and no reasonable, sane person would hold that position.

No one said it's perfect and infallible, just that it's better than the alternatives you suggest. Kinda like Churchill's view of democracy: 'Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'

Quote
It's just like the absolute idiots who said we had no right to put two bullets through Osama Bin Laden. Or those who say that we have no right to try and eliminate Qaddafi.

Foreign affairs and our domestic legal system are two rather distinct topics.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Red A.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #157 on: July 06, 2011, 07:07:22 PM »

George Orwell was a prophet.


BTW has anyone invoked hitler yet?
Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #158 on: July 06, 2011, 07:34:42 PM »

Dudes, I think we're being a bit unfair on Devin.

It should be obvious that his anger (which, in the experience of clinical psychology, is always a secondary emotion stemming from something else) has its genesis in love and compassion for the young child whose life was, in his perception, unnaturally and unfairly cut short. It is obvious his arguments do not stem from a tyrannical desire to lock people up simply for being of a kind he dislikes -- he is trying to speak on behalf of this child whose blood cries out for justice.

Now, as a lawyer, I would run the exact same arguments that GiC runs regarding this issue, perhaps with even as much fervour, but please let us not stand in judgment of Devin's Christianity because he is moved by compassion for a young life.

As to the substantive issues, I feel GiC's most recent post contains the answer.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Mivac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 247


« Reply #159 on: July 06, 2011, 08:59:10 PM »

Devin, doesn't the New Testament tell us to obey the authorities?  Why then is it permissible for a town to murder a man?  Does the law not say that a person is not to be considered guilty until found guilty by a jury?  The jury found him not guilty over 20 times, and yet this town is still justified in murdering him?  

As well, you haven't answered my questions.  Chiefly: Why do you think you can better judge the guilt of Casey Anthony than the jurors who spent countless hours considering the case and countless more in the courtroom?  And number two is: If you dislike a system where a person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then what system would you prefer?  One where the police arrest someone and then they are immediately sentenced?  Or one where the police arrest someone, the prosecutor then decides if they are guilty, and then the judge sentences them?  What system would you prefer?  And keep in mind that every time an innocent person goes to jail, that means the actual offender is still free to offend.

I would prefer a system that allows someone to be tried multiple times for the same offense. (although imposing a maximum) This allows the person to be tried again as more evidence arises.

I would also prefer a system that keeps the offender in custody without any opportunity for "bail". If the offender is accused of threatening a witness, that witness is put under protection and that is added to his charges.

Hearsay, and other evidence should be regarded as evidence and shouldn't be "dismissed". Also, if a scientific method isn't 100% accurate, it should still be admitted as evidence.

Multible times, NO WAY!!!  I have personally seen the abuses of District attorneys.  If they could hold back some evidence for later if they can, they will, so they can retry the accused.  It is already bad enough the games they play.

Here is an example, my wife was accused of kicking an inmate, which was on accident but he was convinced by another inmate to press charges to get money.  The investigator interviewed everyone, and decided there was no crime commited, being an accident.  Well the DA had just lost a major case, went against the investigator and picked up the case, said it was a measure 11 that means minimum of 8 plus years if convicted.  9 months later, with tons of written testimonies on my wifes behalf, the judge acquitted her, which, here is going way beyond not guilty meaning absolutely innocent, and turned and literally tore the DA an new *****.  

The good news, the investigator passed a hat on his own time, raised money for her defense and she ended up owing nothing except added grey hairs and huge stress for something she was completely innocent.

I really feel sorry for the person the DA's choose to prosecute in order to regain their reputation.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2011, 09:11:30 PM by Mivac » Logged
John Ward
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of Korea
Posts: 217



« Reply #160 on: July 06, 2011, 09:16:42 PM »

I would prefer a system that allows someone to be tried multiple times for the same offense. (although imposing a maximum) This allows the person to be tried again as more evidence arises.

I would also prefer a system that keeps the offender in custody without any opportunity for "bail". If the offender is accused of threatening a witness, that witness is put under protection and that is added to his charges.

Hearsay, and other evidence should be regarded as evidence and shouldn't be "dismissed". Also, if a scientific method isn't 100% accurate, it should still be admitted as evidence.

That sounds like a great place to live. Why even have trials? If you think someone did something, that should be enough! That'll be so much easier than the burden of having to prove someone did something.

There's a reason these rules are in place. I'm glad they are. There are many prosecutors that already do some shady things. We don't need to give them even greater leeway.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #161 on: July 06, 2011, 10:06:44 PM »

Dudes, I think we're being a bit unfair on Devin.

It should be obvious that his anger (which, in the experience of clinical psychology, is always a secondary emotion stemming from something else) has its genesis in love and compassion for the young child whose life was, in his perception, unnaturally and unfairly cut short. It is obvious his arguments do not stem from a tyrannical desire to lock people up simply for being of a kind he dislikes -- he is trying to speak on behalf of this child whose blood cries out for justice.

Now, as a lawyer, I would run the exact same arguments that GiC runs regarding this issue, perhaps with even as much fervour, but please let us not stand in judgment of Devin's Christianity because he is moved by compassion for a young life.

As to the substantive issues, I feel GiC's most recent post contains the answer.

You are being too charitable my friend.

The therapist in me wants to have a field day with his posts.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #162 on: July 06, 2011, 10:40:52 PM »

Devin, doesn't the New Testament tell us to obey the authorities?  Why then is it permissible for a town to murder a man?  Does the law not say that a person is not to be considered guilty until found guilty by a jury?  The jury found him not guilty over 20 times, and yet this town is still justified in murdering him? 

As well, you haven't answered my questions.  Chiefly: Why do you think you can better judge the guilt of Casey Anthony than the jurors who spent countless hours considering the case and countless more in the courtroom?  And number two is: If you dislike a system where a person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then what system would you prefer?  One where the police arrest someone and then they are immediately sentenced?  Or one where the police arrest someone, the prosecutor then decides if they are guilty, and then the judge sentences them?  What system would you prefer?  And keep in mind that every time an innocent person goes to jail, that means the actual offender is still free to offend.

I would prefer a system that allows someone to be tried multiple times for the same offense. (although imposing a maximum) This allows the person to be tried again as more evidence arises.

I would also prefer a system that keeps the offender in custody without any opportunity for "bail". If the offender is accused of threatening a witness, that witness is put under protection and that is added to his charges.

Hearsay, and other evidence should be regarded as evidence and shouldn't be "dismissed". Also, if a scientific method isn't 100% accurate, it should still be admitted as evidence.

I agree with you on a number of points, specifically that our system has major flaws and that sometimes DIY justice is necessary but a few of your points above I find horrifying.

First, there is a reason double jeopardy is illegal.  The last thing free citizens need is for the state to have the ability to continually harass us on the same offense.  Some murderers will get off scott free but that can be remedied by having competent prosecutors and educated jurors.  One thing I would fix would be that the prosecutor and the lawyer involved in the case are not allowed to pick the jurors.  Separate attorneys should be deciding who is legible and who is not.  That would get rid of the cherry-picked jury problem.

Second, hearsay and inaccurate scientific methods should not under any circumstances be allowed as evidence.  That's how you get witchcraft trials started.
Au contraire, witchcraft trials were a gift of the "enlightenment" and renaissance.  The Medieval church banned them on the dogma that there was no such thing as a witch.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #163 on: July 06, 2011, 10:51:06 PM »

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.

Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably ain't so weird after all. Given my experience with mathematicians and Christians.

Given the standard of proof required in mathematics, compared to which even fields like Physics and Chemistry seem like voodoo, it shouldn't be too surprising. Wink
For someone who judges strangers as barbarians all the time, you wear your hypocrisy rather proudly. Did you know Usamah bin Ladin, for instance?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,472



« Reply #164 on: July 06, 2011, 11:01:09 PM »

Devin, doesn't the New Testament tell us to obey the authorities?  Why then is it permissible for a town to murder a man?  Does the law not say that a person is not to be considered guilty until found guilty by a jury?  The jury found him not guilty over 20 times, and yet this town is still justified in murdering him? 

As well, you haven't answered my questions.  Chiefly: Why do you think you can better judge the guilt of Casey Anthony than the jurors who spent countless hours considering the case and countless more in the courtroom?  And number two is: If you dislike a system where a person must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, then what system would you prefer?  One where the police arrest someone and then they are immediately sentenced?  Or one where the police arrest someone, the prosecutor then decides if they are guilty, and then the judge sentences them?  What system would you prefer?  And keep in mind that every time an innocent person goes to jail, that means the actual offender is still free to offend.

I would prefer a system that allows someone to be tried multiple times for the same offense. (although imposing a maximum) This allows the person to be tried again as more evidence arises.

I would also prefer a system that keeps the offender in custody without any opportunity for "bail". If the offender is accused of threatening a witness, that witness is put under protection and that is added to his charges.

Hearsay, and other evidence should be regarded as evidence and shouldn't be "dismissed". Also, if a scientific method isn't 100% accurate, it should still be admitted as evidence.

I agree with you on a number of points, specifically that our system has major flaws and that sometimes DIY justice is necessary but a few of your points above I find horrifying.

First, there is a reason double jeopardy is illegal.  The last thing free citizens need is for the state to have the ability to continually harass us on the same offense.  Some murderers will get off scott free but that can be remedied by having competent prosecutors and educated jurors.  One thing I would fix would be that the prosecutor and the lawyer involved in the case are not allowed to pick the jurors.  Separate attorneys should be deciding who is legible and who is not.  That would get rid of the cherry-picked jury problem.

Second, hearsay and inaccurate scientific methods should not under any circumstances be allowed as evidence.  That's how you get witchcraft trials started.
Au contraire, witchcraft trials were a gift of the "enlightenment" and renaissance.  The Medieval church banned them on the dogma that there was no such thing as a witch.

Having read a good bit of the Malleus Malificarum I can see where you are coming from on this - so, touche.
Logged
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #165 on: July 07, 2011, 10:52:23 AM »

I'll just post my facebook status from yesterday:

For the people complaining about the Casey Anthony verdict, I think not guilty was a good call. All the prosecution had was circumstantial evidence, we really don't know without a doubt if she did it. If she would've been found guilty it would've been a certain death penalty. I'd rather her live than risk taking an innocent life. All we can do is hope she is innocent, and pray for her, whether or not she is truly guilty.

I feel sorry for you people that are just lusting for someone's death.
Logged

Forgive my sins.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #166 on: July 07, 2011, 12:11:42 PM »

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.

Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably ain't so weird after all. Given my experience with mathematicians and Christians.

Given the standard of proof required in mathematics, compared to which even fields like Physics and Chemistry seem like voodoo, it shouldn't be too surprising. Wink
For someone who judges strangers as barbarians all the time, you wear your hypocrisy rather proudly. Did you know Usamah bin Ladin, for instance?

I freely judge cultures, religions, and societies because, unlike individuals, they are not innocent until proven guilty; with states and institutions it is quite the opposite, we must assume them guilty so we can assume the individual to be innocent. Cultures, religions, and society must prove their worth and value, not so with individuals subject to the authority of the state and if you go back through my posts you will see that I have long advocated the proper use of our Judicial system for individual detainees, no military tribunals, no closed trials, if you want to hold someone in prison be they a terrorist mastermind or a jaywalker, you must present all your evidence, classified or not, in open court for all the world to see and can only convict on the unanimous opinion of the 12 jurors. If you cannot achieve a conviction, you must release the individual regardless of the scale of crimes they are believed to have committed.

The fallacy in your argument is to equate the state and society with the individual. We are to protect the latter, even if at the expense of the former.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #167 on: July 07, 2011, 01:23:42 PM »

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.

Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably ain't so weird after all. Given my experience with mathematicians and Christians.

Given the standard of proof required in mathematics, compared to which even fields like Physics and Chemistry seem like voodoo, it shouldn't be too surprising. Wink
For someone who judges strangers as barbarians all the time, you wear your hypocrisy rather proudly. Did you know Usamah bin Ladin, for instance?

I freely judge cultures, religions, and societies because, unlike individuals, they are not innocent until proven guilty; with states and institutions it is quite the opposite, we must assume them guilty so we can assume the individual to be innocent. Cultures, religions, and society must prove their worth and value,
LOL. To whom? You?

You've shown yourself to be quite the advocate of parochial bigotry, without demonstrating the knowledge prerequisite to making such judgements on cultures.  Jury selection is supposed to weed out such jurors.

"Worth and value," rather subjective criteria.  Longevity is more objective, and I don't recall you ever praising anyone who has lasted all that long.  Your Anglo-Saxon Republic has only been around now for 134 years (the four score and seven years before the collapse of the union of 1789-note how Lincoln miscalculated (common with the "democracy is the worst, except everything else" crowd to inflate numbers and ignore facts)-doesn't belong to its account.

As for longevity, the longest I know of for a constitution is Old Kingdom Egypt around 2703 BC – 2181 BC, 523 years, or 2703 BC – 2494 BC, 209 years (the question being how the Fourth Dynasty transitioned to the Fifth Dynasty. It seems by intermarriage of the royal family with the high priestly family of Heliopolis/On, in which case the longer is correct).  That absolute monarchy.  There may well be longer, and I'm open to challenges on it.  

not so with individuals subject to the authority of the state and if you go back through my posts you will see that I have long advocated the proper use of our Judicial system for individual detainees, no military tribunals, no closed trials, if you want to hold someone in prison be they a terrorist mastermind or a jaywalker, you must present all your evidence, classified or not, in open court for all the world to see and can only convict on the unanimous opinion of the 12 jurors. If you cannot achieve a conviction, you must release the individual regardless of the scale of crimes they are believed to have committed.
Like the US did with Bin Ladin?

The fallacy in your argument is to equate the state and society with the individual.
Among your many fallacies is to assUme I make such an equation.

We are to protect the latter, even if at the expense of the former.
So you assUme.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2011, 01:40:48 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #168 on: July 07, 2011, 01:56:47 PM »

One shouldn't be so swift to judge a complete stranger.

Weird when a faithful mathematician has to remind a Christian of this fact.

Actually, come to think of it, it probably ain't so weird after all. Given my experience with mathematicians and Christians.

Given the standard of proof required in mathematics, compared to which even fields like Physics and Chemistry seem like voodoo, it shouldn't be too surprising. Wink
For someone who judges strangers as barbarians all the time, you wear your hypocrisy rather proudly. Did you know Usamah bin Ladin, for instance?

I freely judge cultures, religions, and societies because, unlike individuals, they are not innocent until proven guilty; with states and institutions it is quite the opposite, we must assume them guilty so we can assume the individual to be innocent. Cultures, religions, and society must prove their worth and value,
LOL. To whom? You?

You've shown yourself to be quite the advocate of parochial bigotry, without demonstrating the knowledge prerequisite to making such judgements on cultures.  Jury selection is supposed to weed out such jurors.

"Worth and value," rather subjective criteria.  Longevity is more objective, and I don't recall you ever praising anyone who has lasted all that long.  Your Anglo-Saxon Republic has only been around now for 134 years (the four score and seven years before the collapse of the union of 1789-note how Lincoln miscalculated (common with the "democracy is the worst, except everything else" crowd to inflate numbers and ignore facts)-doesn't belong to its account.

As for longevity, the longest I know of for a constitution is Old Kingdom Egypt around 2703 BC – 2181 BC, 523 years, or 2703 BC – 2494 BC, 209 years (the question being how the Fourth Dynasty transitioned to the Fifth Dynasty. It seems by intermarriage of the royal family with the high priestly family of Heliopolis/On, in which case the longer is correct).  That absolute monarchy.  There may well be longer, and I'm open to challenges on it.  

There are better measures than longevity for measuring a state: economic power, military power, and sphere of influence all come to mind as the measures of the great powers throughout history. Quality of life may be more important for the citizens of a state, but that usually goes hand in hand with economic power.

Quote
not so with individuals subject to the authority of the state and if you go back through my posts you will see that I have long advocated the proper use of our Judicial system for individual detainees, no military tribunals, no closed trials, if you want to hold someone in prison be they a terrorist mastermind or a jaywalker, you must present all your evidence, classified or not, in open court for all the world to see and can only convict on the unanimous opinion of the 12 jurors. If you