OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 30, 2014, 03:24:35 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 8340 times) Average Rating: 3
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« 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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,537



« 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
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,537



« 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: 11,510


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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,520


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: 4,926



« 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: 4,926



« 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
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


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: 4,926



« 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
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


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: 4,926



« 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: 4,926



« 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
Moderated
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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,853



« 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

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
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
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,537



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,853



« 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

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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 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?

He will a soldier killed in a military operation, he was a combatant who failed to surrendered; he was subject to a the rules of war for a combatant holding a fortified position against a military assault, not to our judicial system, attacking his base which served a real military purpose as a center of logistics and communication and killing him was no different than attacking some cave in Afghanistan and killing some random insurgent in the process. Had he surrendered and been captured, I would argue he would have had the right to argue his case in federal court and be judged by a jury. But he wasn't, so you're comparing apples to hand grenades.
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
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #169 on: July 07, 2011, 03:08:14 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.
How then would you compare the power of Rome versus that of the US?  One can say, with nuclear weapons, that the US is more powerful.  However, it has had to share the world stage with others while Rome did not until the Sassanids came along.

That being said, the Egyptian Old Kingdom still would compare favorably with the criteria you gave.

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?
He will a soldier killed in a military operation, he was a combatant who failed to surrendered; he was subject to a the rules of war for a combatant holding a fortified position against a military assault, not to our judicial system, attacking his base which served a real military purpose as a center of logistics and communication and killing him was no different than attacking some cave in Afghanistan and killing some random insurgent in the process. Had he surrendered and been captured, I would argue he would have had the right to argue his case in federal court and be judged by a jury. But he wasn't, so you're comparing apples to hand grenades.
When did the US Congress declare war on Pakistan?
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 #170 on: July 07, 2011, 04:43:36 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.

How then would you compare the power of Rome versus that of the US?  One can say, with nuclear weapons, that the US is more powerful.  However, it has had to share the world stage with others while Rome did not until the Sassanids came along.

That being said, the Egyptian Old Kingdom still would compare favorably with the criteria you gave.

Rome's military power was certainly comparable taking technological changes into account, their logistical system was nothing short of a miracle for the day. Our era of military expansion was cut short by the development of Nuclear weapons, no matter how powerful your conventional forces a well armed nuclear opponent takes the military option off the table. In technological development, the sciences, and standard of living we clearly win out over the Romans, we started out with technology that only represented an evolutionary improvement over what Rome had, save for gunpowder, that was a revolutionary military advancement, but people still traveled by foot, horse, or boat, lived mostly as farmers, and communications were extremely inefficient, since then we have become a global leader in transportation and communications, moved people off the farms and into higher paying jobs and the standard of living has increased by several orders of magnitude. But, of course, the importance of the British Empire in this development should in no way be diminished. There were some promising intellectuals during the Roman Empire, including one who developed a precursor to the Steam Engine (someone in Alexandria if memory serves me right), but they never capitalized on these intellectual achievements to bring about an industrial revolution. So as far as technological advancement goes, I think the US and British Empires along with the short-lived Third Reich take the cake. Then there's cultural achievements, which the US would rank pretty low in, unless you include technological innovation as a cultural achievement.

A more in depth analysis of economics and military operations would obviously be needed to provide a true Ranking of Empires throughout history, but for now, the US is clearly the undisputed world superpower...China will likely rise as a challenge to us in the future, but that's still a ways off.


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 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?
He will a soldier killed in a military operation, he was a combatant who failed to surrendered; he was subject to a the rules of war for a combatant holding a fortified position against a military assault, not to our judicial system, attacking his base which served a real military purpose as a center of logistics and communication and killing him was no different than attacking some cave in Afghanistan and killing some random insurgent in the process. Had he surrendered and been captured, I would argue he would have had the right to argue his case in federal court and be judged by a jury. But he wasn't, so you're comparing apples to hand grenades.
When did the US Congress declare war on Pakistan?

I posted a response in the thread on that issue, no reason to run parallel discussions.
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
Warned
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: 37,963



« Reply #171 on: July 07, 2011, 05:53:55 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.

How then would you compare the power of Rome versus that of the US?  One can say, with nuclear weapons, that the US is more powerful.  However, it has had to share the world stage with others while Rome did not until the Sassanids came along.

That being said, the Egyptian Old Kingdom still would compare favorably with the criteria you gave.

Rome's military power was certainly comparable taking technological changes into account, their logistical system was nothing short of a miracle for the day. Our era of military expansion was cut short by the development of Nuclear weapons, no matter how powerful your conventional forces a well armed nuclear opponent takes the military option off the table. In technological development, the sciences, and standard of living we clearly win out over the Romans, we started out with technology that only represented an evolutionary improvement over what Rome had, save for gunpowder, that was a revolutionary military advancement, but people still traveled by foot, horse, or boat, lived mostly as farmers, and communications were extremely inefficient, since then we have become a global leader in transportation and communications, moved people off the farms and into higher paying jobs and the standard of living has increased by several orders of magnitude. But, of course, the importance of the British Empire in this development should in no way be diminished. There were some promising intellectuals during the Roman Empire, including one who developed a precursor to the Steam Engine (someone in Alexandria if memory serves me right), but they never capitalized on these intellectual achievements to bring about an industrial revolution. So as far as technological advancement goes, I think the US and British Empires along with the short-lived Third Reich take the cake. Then there's cultural achievements, which the US would rank pretty low in, unless you include technological innovation as a cultural achievement.

A more in depth analysis of economics and military operations would obviously be needed to provide a true Ranking of Empires throughout history, but for now, the US is clearly the undisputed world superpower...China will likely rise as a challenge to us in the future, but that's still a ways off.
LOL. August 2.


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: 4,926



« Reply #172 on: July 08, 2011, 12:30:44 AM »

Lightning strikes tree near Caylee Anthony memorial site:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/lightning-strikes-tree-near-caylee-anthony-memorial-site/?hpt=hp_t2

I'm not the kind to ascribe meaning to things like this, but you have to admit, it is kinda ominous...
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,853



« Reply #173 on: July 08, 2011, 09:15:11 AM »

Lightning strikes tree near Caylee Anthony memorial site:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/lightning-strikes-tree-near-caylee-anthony-memorial-site/?hpt=hp_t2

I'm not the kind to ascribe meaning to things like this, but you have to admit, it is kinda ominous...

I don't think God is swayed by public opinion.  He doesn't send lightning onto every murdered child's memorial site, so why this one?
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,926



« Reply #174 on: July 08, 2011, 11:14:49 AM »

Lightning strikes tree near Caylee Anthony memorial site:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/lightning-strikes-tree-near-caylee-anthony-memorial-site/?hpt=hp_t2

I'm not the kind to ascribe meaning to things like this, but you have to admit, it is kinda ominous...

I don't think God is swayed by public opinion.  He doesn't send lightning onto every murdered child's memorial site, so why this one?

Exactly why I don't try to search for any symbolism other than coincidence. lol

Of course, you could argue it is nature reacting to mankind's actions. (which is a completely Orthodox interpretation) But still, I have a feeling it is just a coincidence.
Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,853



« Reply #175 on: July 08, 2011, 04:44:49 PM »

Lightning strikes tree near Caylee Anthony memorial site:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/lightning-strikes-tree-near-caylee-anthony-memorial-site/?hpt=hp_t2

I'm not the kind to ascribe meaning to things like this, but you have to admit, it is kinda ominous...

I don't think God is swayed by public opinion.  He doesn't send lightning onto every murdered child's memorial site, so why this one?

Exactly why I don't try to search for any symbolism other than coincidence. lol

Of course, you could argue it is nature reacting to mankind's actions. (which is a completely Orthodox interpretation) But still, I have a feeling it is just a coincidence.

Understood.  An interesting coincidence, then.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,589



« Reply #176 on: July 08, 2011, 04:50:54 PM »

Maybe the child was like Rosemary's Baby, and the bolt of lightning was shown as a sign of God's dispeasure with all of the haters that think the mom that spared the world from the Antichrist should go to jail.






Yes, I am joking

Lightning strikes tree near Caylee Anthony memorial site:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/lightning-strikes-tree-near-caylee-anthony-memorial-site/?hpt=hp_t2

I'm not the kind to ascribe meaning to things like this, but you have to admit, it is kinda ominous...

I don't think God is swayed by public opinion.  He doesn't send lightning onto every murdered child's memorial site, so why this one?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,721


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #177 on: July 09, 2011, 12:26:34 AM »

I'm new to this discussion. I'm REALLY new to this discussion.

Okay, I'll admit it: I live under a rock. Embarrassed I therefore know nothing about the Casey Anthony trial, except that the defendant's first name is Casey and her last name Anthony, so I'm here to be enlightened.

Devin, what evidence do you have to prove Casey Anthony guilty of murdering her daughter?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 12:31:42 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 7,853



« Reply #178 on: July 09, 2011, 01:52:22 AM »

I'm new to this discussion. I'm REALLY new to this discussion.

Okay, I'll admit it: I live under a rock. Embarrassed I therefore know nothing about the Casey Anthony trial, except that the defendant's first name is Casey and her last name Anthony, so I'm here to be enlightened.

Devin, what evidence do you have to prove Casey Anthony guilty of murdering her daughter?

Consider yourself lucky.  Just turn around and leave.  You'll be glad you did!   Wink

I think this trial got a bit too much play.  I've been sticking to Itar-Tass and Al Jazeera for my news so I can see what else is going on in the world.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Punch
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,589



« Reply #179 on: July 11, 2011, 11:30:28 AM »

Add the BBC to those two and you have my daily World News intake.  I cannot stand the Communist News Network or Faux News.

I'm new to this discussion. I'm REALLY new to this discussion.

Okay, I'll admit it: I live under a rock. Embarrassed I therefore know nothing about the Casey Anthony trial, except that the defendant's first name is Casey and her last name Anthony, so I'm here to be enlightened.

Devin, what evidence do you have to prove Casey Anthony guilty of murdering her daughter?

Consider yourself lucky.  Just turn around and leave.  You'll be glad you did!   Wink

I think this trial got a bit too much play.  I've been sticking to Itar-Tass and Al Jazeera for my news so I can see what else is going on in the world.
Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.
Tags: Casey Anthony Chuck Norris 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.246 seconds with 72 queries.