Criticizing Lawyers, Teachers & Dating

[Town Heretic]

I wrote: Lawyers serve a system designed to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. If you oppose that you oppose justice, however you wrap it.

Justice is murderers being put to death publicly, painfully and promptly.

So let's not truncate to distort the point, which is that justice is served by a process that arrives at it and not something else, however satisfying it might feel.

Wrapped like that, lawyers are only a hindrance.

I agree that wrapping something in a truncated distortion can alter the perception.

All that is required is one man to assess the evidence and hear the witnesses.

Well, no, unless what you're looking for is less than what you can serve, which is justice.

I mean all you need is a sharp tool and a general idea of anatomy to attempt to remove an appendix, but I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Justice is murderers being put to death publicly, painfully and promptly.

Wrapped like that, lawyers are only a hindrance. All that is required is one man to assess the evidence and hear the witnesses.

'Congratulations' Stripe. 'Wrapped like that' you've just made wrongful convictions shoot up along with abolishing the time for appeals to overturn them. Thank goodness you're not in charge of the justice system.

 

[Stripe]

let's not truncate to distort the point

It's my point. It's not truncated or distorted. My point is that proper judgement can be delivered by one man. If you disagree with my point you have to say "I disagree" and tell us why judgement cannot be passed by one man.

which is that justice is served by a process that arrives at it and not something else, however satisfying it might feel.

Your system has arrived at months after the murderer went on his spree and no justice being served.

I agree that wrapping something in a truncated distortion can alter the perception.

My description of my idea of a good justice system is not a truncation of my idea of a good justice system. Nor is my idea of a good justice system a distortion of my idea of a good justice system. If you want to argue with me, you have to understand and allow to stand my description of my ideas.

no

This is where you tell us why. For what reason is one man incapable of good judgement?

 

[The Barbarian]

Randomly-pulled juries make it harder for any political power to dominate the justice system, and make it harder to wrongly convict. That was the point of the Magna Carta.

The barons just wanted to protect themselves, but the wording ended up protecting everyone.

 

[resurrected]

Your system has arrived at months after the murderer went on his spree and no justice being served.

42 months or so


Stripe, maybe this would help?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm more than a little suspicious about anyone who wants to remove the right to a trial by jury.

History shows such people have something in mind that they want to impose on everyone else.

 

[Town Heretic]

It's my point. It's not truncated or distorted.

You truncated my quote and distorted its meaning. That's what I was referring to.

My point is that proper judgement can be delivered by one man.

Happens in our system all the time. We also have a right to trial by jury. Do you know the difference between the two in terms of verdicts, on average?

Your system has arrived at months after the murderer went on his spree and no justice being served.

So it's only justice if it happens by your time table? And if we moved faster and got it wrong?

This is where you tell us why. For what reason is one man incapable of good judgement?

One man is more likely to get a thing wrong or to succumb to personal bias than is a jury comprised of a variety of perspectives and biases, of people who have to all see a thing through the lens of the reasonable man and, conferring together, reach a decision on the threshold.

Why isn't one witness sufficient?

 

[Stripe]

42 months or so

I'm referring to the Aurora murderer.

Stripe, maybe this would help?

:thumb:

You truncated my quote and distorted its meaning. That's what I was referring to.

What you say is irrelevant. I am not truncating or distorting my point. My point is what you need to deal with.

Happens in our system all the time.

Great. So what's the problem then?

One man is more likely to get a thing wrong or to succumb to personal bias than is a jury comprised of a variety of perspectives and biases, of people who have to all see a thing through the lens of the reasonable man and, conferring together, reach a decision on the threshold.

Nope. The collective is far more likely to get things systematically wrong every single time. When you establish meaningless rules and call them necessary and everyone starts thinking they are the be all and end all, then every case becomes a perversion. With one man in charge, at least there is a chance he might be good.

Why isn't one witness sufficient?

Well let's see. If it was you, we'd never be able to understand anything. There needs to be two or three so a story can arise in more than one dimension.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope. The collective is far more likely to get things systematically wrong every single time. When you establish meaningless rules and call them necessary and everyone starts thinking they are the be all and end all, then every case becomes a perversion. With one man in charge, at least there is a chance he might be good.

What exactly are these "meaningless rules" you speak of? Do please specify what these are and why they lack any legal merit. So far all you're offering is vague bluster whereas TH has countered you point for point and on point (more to the point). He's an expert on the legal system. You.....ain't.

Well let's see. If it was you, we'd never be able to understand anything. There needs to be two or three so a story can arise in more than one dimension.

Eh, TH has been pretty darn clear on the process and how it works from the outset. You're an English teacher aren't you? It's not that difficult to understand.

lain:

 

[Town Heretic]

...What you say is irrelevant.

Then you shouldn't truncate and distort it.

I am not truncating or distorting my point.

No one said you were. lain: So that's a win.

My point is what you need to deal with.

Which one? I've addressed your points from the beginning. I guess you're lucky I didn't decide what you said was irrelevant, huh.

Great. So what's the problem then?

My guess is that one of the problems is that you only want that part of the system.

Nope. The collective is far more likely to get things systematically wrong every single time.

Cite to the study in jurisprudence that supports that.

When you establish meaningless rules and call them necessary and everyone starts thinking they are the be all and end all, then every case becomes a perversion.

What meaningless rules?

With one man in charge, at least there is a chance he might be good.

No man is good. You know that. So what we're talking about is judgment. And the answer to who should adjudicate depends on the question, but in general I like the common wisdom of a jury guided by the judge who understands the law, considering the facts as presented by those trained in the law.

Re: If one judge is enough, if one man's judgment is enough, then why is it that one witness isn't enough?

Well let's see.

It isn't and wasn't enough for a Biblical court. So that infers something, something you aren't speaking to.

If it was you, we'd never be able to understand anything.

Both untrue and silly.

There needs to be two or three so a story can arise in more than one dimension.

That's not spoken in any scripture and I suspect you know why, that we don't trust the life of a man, the property of a man to one voice that may be dishonest. That recognition is found in the penalty for false witness, for perjury. We need corroboration. Because the matter is important. Men can err, intentionally or by accident.

So can a single judge.

 

[resurrected]

I'm referring to the Aurora murderer.

:doh: of course

8 months


I was thinking of the Ft. Hood shooting travesty of justice that's nearing 41 months

 

[Stripe]

Which one? I've addressed your points from the beginning. I guess you're lucky I didn't decide what you said was irrelevant, huh.

One man is all that is needed in order to make a good judgement.

My guess is that one of the problems is that you only want that part of the system.

Why are you guessing? There are very few parts of your system that I would keep. The part where one man is responsible for proper judgement is one.

Cite to the study in jurisprudence that supports that.

Genesis 6:5
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Psalm 10:13
Why do the wicked renounce God? He has said in his heart, “You will not require an account.”

Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?

Ezekiel 13:22
“Because with lies you have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and you have strengthened the hands of the wicked, so that he does not turn from his wicked way to save his life.

Mark 15:14
Then Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, “Crucify Him!”​

What meaningless rules?

The first one being that everyone has to have a lawyer.

No man is good. You know that.

And yet even if you are evil, you know how to do good things. But it is far more likely that one man will do right than it is for a crowd to decide to do right.

...those trained in the law.

Matthew 16
6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”​

Re: If one judge is enough, if one man's judgment is enough, then why is it that one witness isn't enough?

Because more than one witness is required to give a three dimensional description of events to the judge.

It isn't and wasn't enough for a Biblical court. So that infers something, something you aren't speaking to.

Bible says a judge and multiple witnesses. Nothing about lawyers, rights or juicyprunings.

That's not spoken in any scripture and I suspect you know why, that we don't trust the life of a man, the property of a man to one voice that may be dishonest. That recognition is found in the penalty for false witness, for perjury. We need corroboration. Because the matter is important. Men can err, intentionally or by accident.

Sounds like you're very confused. The bible does very much so say that judgement shall be passed upon the testimony of two or three witnesses, but shall not be passed on the testimony of only one witness.

Deuteronomy 17
2 “If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, 3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, 4 and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. 6 Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

Deuteronomy 19
The Law Concerning Witnesses
15 “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. 16 If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, 17 then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. 18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, 19 then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 20 And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Matthew 18
Dealing with a Sinning Brother
15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. 18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

2 Corinthians 13
Coming with Authority
13 This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” 2 I have told you before, and foretell as if I were present the second time, and now being absent I write to those who have sinned before, and to all the rest, that if I come again I will not spare

1 Timothy 5
Honor the Elders
17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

Hebrews 10
The Just Live by Faith
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

So can a single judge.

You can have multiple judges, if you like. But there only needs to be one. And there certainly need be no lawyers.

 

[Town Heretic]

One man is all that is needed in order to make a good judgement.

I've answered you on that point. One man is also all you need to make a horrible judgment or an honest mistake and there's a reason for peer review in scientific circles. It's not that the scientist presenting isn't competent either.

Why are you guessing?

Because you haven't been terribly specific.

There are very few parts of your system that I would keep. The part where one man is responsible for proper judgement is one.

Okay. Good for you. And?

I said to cite to studies that support the notion that the collective is more likely to get a thing wrong. You didn't do that, which isn't surprising since I hold you don't really know the subject and are essentially declaring your desire here.

None of the scripture you set out instead distinguishes between men and a man and so fails to support your contention. So, no studies and no confirming scripture equals a bad idea on your part.

Mark 15:14
Then Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, “Crucify Him!”[/I][/indent]

That one could be used to note that the mob, which isn't a charged jury acting within the scope of something like my system of justice, gets it as wrong as an individual sufficiently jaded. Bad decision all around and no appellate process to address it.

What meaningless rules?

The first one being that everyone has to have a lawyer.

See, that's not even actually a rule. You can defend yourself pro se and even bring action without counsel, foolish as that is, in many civil circumstances.

And yet even if you are evil, you know how to do good things. But it is far more likely that one man will do right than it is for a crowd to decide to do right.

Well, no. That's just you declaring a thing without any study of my system, the one you decided to weigh in on and declare a few things about like this, to support your bias.

The fact is, and one supported by verdict after upheld verdict, that juries, properly constituted, informed of the evidence and charged, do good work that is confirmed by those learned in the law upon appeal and review.

Matthew 16
6 Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.”​

Not exactly the same animal and the people who convicted Christ were breaking their own law. Now you didn't enter this to criticize a Biblical system, so showing men failing that one isn't really germane to establishing a rule in mine.

Because more than one witness is required to give a three dimensional description of events to the judge.

The Bible doesn't say that. All we do know is that more than one is required (three, wasn't it?) Which means one witness isn't trusted.

Bible says a judge and multiple witnesses. Nothing about lawyers, rights or juicyprunings.

We aren't a theocracy and I haven't asserted that we're attempting to repeat what made perfect sense in that day but makes less sense in this one (see, better educated and informed jury pools, forensic evidence, etc.).

Sounds like you're very confused.

No, it really doesn't. But it does sound like you should have abstained from criticizing what you clearly lack familiarity with.

The bible does very much so say that judgement shall be passed upon the testimony of two or three witnesses,

I know. I said so. I noted that one wasn't sufficient. No confusion at all.

You can have multiple judges, if you like.

So much for the one man business then. We do actually have multiple judges at the appellate level of review.

But there only needs to be one.

There's only one at the trial level, though his role is determined by the defendant, who can either rest on his judgment and the appellate process for recourse, or a jury, which functions like multiple judges, guided by the hand of the actual judge of law.

And there certainly need be no lawyers.

In Christ's case the assembly seemed to act (if in a less disciplined fashion) like prosecutors.

Otherwise, the point of contention between us was never over how the OT system of justice functioned, but your unfounded declarations regarding mine.

Your system is corrupt, broken and evil.

They remain unfounded.

 

[Stripe]

I've answered you on that point. One man is also all you need to make a horrible judgment or an honest mistake and there's a reason for peer review in scientific circles. It's not that the scientist presenting isn't competent either.

Judges are not above the law and the same problems are rampant within your system.

Because you haven't been terribly specific.

What I've said has been very simple and easy to understand. All you have to do is open a newspaper. The first report you read of an outcome will show a system that does not provide justice.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Judges are not above the law and the same problems are rampant within your system.


What I've said has been very simple and easy to understand. All you have to do is open a newspaper. The first report you read of an outcome will show a system that does not provide justice.

That's your "rebuttal"?!

What TH has said has been 'very simple and easy to understand', along with also being informative. Quit trying to pretend you're an *authority* on a subject you clearly know very little about for once...

:freak:

 

[Town Heretic]

Judges are not above the law and the same problems are rampant within your system.

Rampant? Nonsense. Just more of your uninformed declarations in relation to my system. I'm sure there are any number of things you know a great deal about. You should criticize those instead. Else, cite any authoritative study confirming your view...I'll wait while you don't do that. lain:

What I've said has been very simple and easy to understand.

Vague generalities frequently are, but they aren't argument. I notice you aren't answering the substantive rebuttal so I'll consider the matter essentially closed.

All you have to do is open a newspaper.

I agree that properly illustrates your problem, conflating your anecdotal impression with fact and rule.

The first report you read of an outcome will show a system that does not provide justice.

Supra, prior. See you.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Rampant? Nonsense.

Without the punctuation, any one of your posts.

See you.

Bye. :wave2:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Without the punctuation, any one of your posts.Bye. :wave2:

So you got pwned by someone who knows what they're talking about and this is your *response*...

Typical Stripe.

:yawn:

 

[resurrected]

Lawyers are completely unnecessary in order for justice to be served.

David Renz Accused Of Killing Woman Raping Child In New York Mall Carjacking


Syracuse, NY – Authorities state 29-year-old David J. Renz, previously court ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device for child pornography possession, disabled and removed his anklet shortly before conducting a violent carjacking.

The carjacking occurred about 150 miles west of Albany, New York near Syracuse in Clay. Renz abducted 47-year-old Lori A. Bresnahan and her 10-year-old daughter in the parking lot at Great Northern Mall as they were leaving gymnastics class Thursday evening.

Investigators allege Renz bound the two, fatally stabbed Bresnahan multiple times, and raped the 10-year-old.

The girl was later found by a motorist. The driver called 911 and told dispatchers he witnessed a man fleeing the scene. Police sent officers and Renz was captured a short time later in a wooded area. The child was taken to the hospital for treatment.

It was unclear how the girl managed to escape or when during the abduction Bresnahan was killed. Investigators are still trying to piece together the timeline of events.

Renz had been charged in federal court January from a June arrest where he was caught in possession of child pornography on an encrypted hard drive by the FBI.

He eventually admitted to using the internet as a means to view and download 500 videos and 3,000 illicit pornographic images of children, and had done so for at least six years.

Renz was allowed to remain free because of a prosecutor requested court extension in his pending child porn case. Investigators required additional time to sort through the extensive evidence.

Without a prior criminal history, Renz was given homebound electronic monitoring in lieu of detainment so long as he remained home at night, off the internet, and away from schools, parks, and other areas populated with children.

Renz had been living with his mother after losing his supermarket job. Before Thursday’s attacks Renz cut his GPS tracker. The monitoring company failed to immediately detect the removal until Renz had already committed the crimes.

Following his Thursday night arrest, Renz claimed he was assaulted by other inmates at the Onondaga County Justice Center, and now has a broken nose. Renz was arraigned in court Friday on felony charges of murder, rape, and kidnapping. He is being held without bail.

Stripe - do you see any reason that the attorney responsible for Renz' being free shouldn't be sentenced to death right alongside him?

NY man who raped girl, killed mom gets life term

SYRACUSE, N.Y. (AP) — A New York man was sentenced Friday to life in prison without parole for raping a girl and killing her mother after cutting off his ankle monitor and carjacking them last year.

David Renz, 30, of the Syracuse suburb of Cicero, was given the maximum possible penalty in Onondaga County Court by a judge who said he hoped the sentence would comfort the victims' family.

"One day, you will face another judge," Judge Thomas Miller told Renz. "One day when you pass from this earth, another judge will impose a harsher sentence for the absolute evil you committed."



Relatives said they didn't want the death penalty case pursued because it would have required the girl to testify.

what kind of a scumbag lawyer would call a girl raped at ten years old and forced to watch her mother murdered to testify?

what kind of a scumbag judge would allow that?

oh yeah :doh:

never mind

 

[resurrected]

well, at least we get to pay for his upkeep for a few decades