she just wasn't liberal enough for them.
Ok, good point, if true.
I know that as a life long Republican in Pennsylvania I couldn't stand Arlen Spector all those years even though he was an R.
So.....who knows.....hopefully we will find out more.
she just wasn't liberal enough for them.
First glance makes it look like he's a right wing nutcase. Other than that, not very much.
We don't need two decades of appeals (often even against the will of the defendant himself), with the victims and the rest of us playing for the criminal's free room & board, medical, dental, entertainment, etc. for that entire time.
What we need is for the law to reflect to appropriate standard set forth by our Creator, Himself. Namely, that the penalty for perjury is whatever penalty the defendant is facing. If you are found guilty (by 2 or 3 pieces of credible evidence) of falsely accusing someone of murder, then you will receive the death penalty. Same with someone committing perjury in favor of a defendant.
And the same penalty for any officer of the court (including the judge) who is found criminally negligent in the conviction and sentencing of the defendant.
If we had that, there would be no need for appeals. And it wouldn't be a perfect system, but neither is our current, absurdly unjust appeal system.
Huh?
Why would a right wing nutcase be reading Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto?
The only thing that is making it look like he was a right wing nutcase is the nutcase sherrif.
That's true. The reason being that folks forgot about that silly, antiquated piece of paper called the U.S. Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. |
The guilt was already established. At the trial. Hello?Of course you'd still need appeals. When a person's life is at stake then guilt has to be established be it from criminal act to wilful perjury.
I certainly do. And we have that because people have little accountability for perjury and criminal negligence for the officers of the court, ie the judge, prosecutor... If you knew you'd face the death penalty for it, would an 18-year-old high school girl falsely accuse a football player of rape? Highly unlikely!Do you have any idea of the miscarriage rate in the West alone? It ain't good TG.
Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.And what do you mean by 'criminal negligence' in regards to officers of the court and the judge? Are you including the jury in this?
You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)As far as I'm aware it's not the judge's role to convict the defendant but to keep order in the court and ensure a fair trial. Besides that he/she carries out sentencing based on the outcome of the jury verdict and in the cases you're describing they'd only have the option of delivering the death penalty anyway. So what of cases where the jury turn out to be wrong? Not through negligence but through sheer human error?
Shall we read the full 2nd Amendment?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Even though it has been construed as an individual right (and I agree with said right, subject to reasonable regulation) I don't think the right is particularly clear from the actual text of the constitution.
Get the stuff out of your eyes. Loughner was a lefty nut job. He shot Giffords because she was a blue dog Democrat.
Huh?
Why would a right wing nutcase be reading Mein Kampf ...
and The Communist Manifesto?
The only thing that is making it look like he was a right wing nutcase is the nutcase sherrif.
The guilt was already established. At the trial. Hello?
I certainly do. And we have that because people have little accountability for perjury and criminal negligence for the officers of the court, ie the judge, prosecutor... If you knew you'd face the death penalty for it, would an 18-year-old high school girl falsely accuse a football player of rape? Highly unlikely!
Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.
You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)
Criminal negligence already exists as a valid legal concept. If someone is found guilty and and we find out later he was innocent, through no reasonable fault of anyone involved, that is not a crime. If you believe a judge was criminally negligent in finding an innocent person to be guilty (and thus flogged or executed), then you may bring charges against that judge, before another judge. You must provide at least 2 or 3 credible examples of evidence to show the first judge was negligent in his administration of justice in the case, whether he blatantly ignored the evidence in the case or if he just slept through some of it (as Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometimes likes to do). And if you fail to bring sufficient evidence, that ends there. If you bring false evidence or falsely accuse the judge, then you face the penalty that he faced (which was the penalty given to the person you think he wrongly convicted). If a judge knows he will be held accountable in this way, he will take his job much more seriously than judges do right now. Judges are barely accountable at all, today, for the outcome of a trial, since the responsibility is usually pawned off onto 12 strangers off the street who then disappear back into society, probably never to be heard from again!
See how this works? The simplicity is beautiful. And it gives everyone an enormous motivation to NOT bring false evidence or falsely accuse others. Thus, the wrongful conviction rate would plummet.
Like so many people, Arthur, you are a lot smarter than God. Congratulations. Your ignorance is willful, and you are a fool. I hope you get it, someday.
We need informed juries sitting on trials.Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.
You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)
Well it is quite obvious Loughner is guilty. He held the gun and pulled the trigger. Fry him within 24 hours of conviction. Why waste tax payer dollars on housing him?
Our society has gone all soft on criminals. That is why we have more of them today than ever before. We should go back to the Biblical standard.
Really?
Loughner himself said his favorite books were Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" and Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf".
The guilt was already established. At the trial. Hello?
I certainly do. And we have that because people have little accountability for perjury and criminal negligence for the officers of the court, ie the judge, prosecutor... If you knew you'd face the death penalty for it, would an 18-year-old high school girl falsely accuse a football player of rape? Highly unlikely!
Jury? What jury? NO JURY. Justice by committee is no justice at all. Our jury system is a joke. Having a dozen random people off the street who have no knowledge, training or experience in criminal justice sit in a room and "vote on what is true" is absurd in the extreme. In my own recent jury duty experience, both the prosecutor and the presiding judge actually said, word for word, that we as the jury would "decide what the facts are." Really? The facts will change based on what we vote? If we vote that the guy did ___, then the real facts change to fit our vote? Of course not. They kept telling us that we would decide what the facts are. Talk about denial of truth and reality.
You describe having 12 judges and a referee in black robes. We should have one judge, period. The only rightful and appropriate authority in a court of law is a judge. (And I say that despite believing that the vast majority of judges in America are corrupt, almost none are pro-life and we have ZERO pro-life judges on the supreme court. But, right is right.)
Criminal negligence already exists as a valid legal concept. If someone is found guilty and and we find out later he was innocent, through no reasonable fault of anyone involved, that is not a crime. If you believe a judge was criminally negligent in finding an innocent person to be guilty (and thus flogged or executed), then you may bring charges against that judge, before another judge. You must provide at least 2 or 3 credible examples of evidence to show the first judge was negligent in his administration of justice in the case, whether he blatantly ignored the evidence in the case or if he just slept through some of it (as Ruth Bader Ginsberg sometimes likes to do). And if you fail to bring sufficient evidence, that ends there. If you bring false evidence or falsely accuse the judge, then you face the penalty that he faced (which was the penalty given to the person you think he wrongly convicted). If a judge knows he will be held accountable in this way, he will take his job much more seriously than judges do right now. Judges are barely accountable at all, today, for the outcome of a trial, since the responsibility is usually pawned off onto 12 strangers off the street who then disappear back into society, probably never to be heard from again!
See how this works? The simplicity is beautiful. And it gives everyone an enormous motivation to NOT bring false evidence or falsely accuse others. Thus, the wrongful conviction rate would plummet.
I'm not sure how to take this. :squint:
I agree with said right, subject to reasonable regulation
The things you outline may have some impact Trad....but I don't think they will have as much as you think. A nut is a nut no matter what his socio-economic position. Out of all the things you outline I can only see increased awareness of mental health issues and increased opportunites for treatment as having any real impact. Even then it will still be nominal. Nuts don't usually seek treatment because.....well, they're nuts. :idunno:
First glance makes it look like he's a right wing nutcase. Other than that, not very much.
The only thing that is making it look like he was a right wing nutcase is the nutcase sherrif.