 SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to PX Eliezer
Re: In our State's defense... said by PX Eliezer:said by Snowy:The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge.
That's 13 14 different people that would have to be in agreement that the event was unlawful.
Your faith in the judicial system is touching. People have even been sent to death row---and even been executed---by mistake. etc... That's an old, tried & true argument against any existing or proposed law anyone is in disagreement with.
It has zero impact on the specific discussion.
So far I've seen 2 arguments against the proposed law
1. The offenses are already codified
2. The proposed law is too vague, lending itself to abuse.
Either one of those make for a respectful argument without bringing high emotion things such as the death penalty into the discussion.
On a lighter note, the people who are arguing both items #1 & #2 ought to make up their mind instead of appearing to be grasping at anything that floats. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Snowy:The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge.
That's an old, tried & true argument used to rationalize support for a bad idea.
It has zero impact on the specific discussion because it cannot be relied upon as an adequate safeguard of personal rights and freedoms. |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by PX Eliezer:said by Snowy:The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge.
That's an old, tried & true argument used to rationalize support for a bad idea. It has zero impact on the specific discussion because it cannot be relied upon as an adequate safeguard of personal rights and freedoms. A jury cannot be relied upon as an adequate safeguard of personal rights and freedoms?
That's actually the purpose of a jury. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Snowy:said by PX Eliezer:said by Snowy:The safety valve here is that a prosecutor would have to see the event as unlawful & then 12 jurors would also have to be onboard as well as the trial judge.
That's an old, tried & true argument used to rationalize support for a bad idea. It has zero impact on the specific discussion because it cannot be relied upon as an adequate safeguard of personal rights and freedoms. A jury cannot be relied upon as an adequate safeguard of personal rights and freedoms? That's actually the purpose of a jury. Yes, it is, but it is not perfect, and often not even adequate.
Thus, it should not be used as a crutch for supporting a bad law.
Again, have you never heard the phrase "miscarriage of justice"? That is one of the most common phrases in the English language. By your rationalization, it should not exist. Must be in people's imaginations.
-----------------------
Here is a parallel example:
Food can be irradiated to destroy bacterial contamination.
Yet that fact should NOT be used as an excuse to engage in poor sanitary practices in the food manufacturing plant.
Imagine if the workers in a food processing plant said, yeah, we have dead rats all over, and maggots, and we never wash our hands after we poop....
....but it's OK, we have a SAFEGUARD, we'll just irradiate the hell out of it. |
|
SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·Clearwire Wireless
| said by PX Eliezer:Thus, it should not be used as a crutch for supporting a bad law.
You're using that juries do make mistakes as a reason to not support what you consider a bad law.
Fair enough.
ps don't put words in my mouth or attribute thoughts as mine, it's not a good idea. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Optimum Voice
·Vitelity VOIP
·Gizmo5
| said by Snowy:ps don't put words in my mouth
I don't want to put anything into your mouth, but in all of these posts I was directly responding to what you yourself said, AFAIK. 
Do you think that I twisted anything that you said? |
|
