Yes it is. That is the beauty of being an American.
It does not, however, make one a moron!
It is also the beauty of being a Canadian, of being British, of being an Aussie, of being Dutch and so on.....
Electric chair to return
- Thread starter Ragman
- Start date
It is also the beauty of being a Canadian, of being British, of being an Aussie, of being Dutch and so on.....
If the prosecution is held accountable with some type of meaningful sanctions, I think many of the botch cases would be eliminated. Not a cure all, but does get us in a better place when seeking appropriate remedies. Not a fan of the death penalty because of the mistakes, but I wouldn't go far enough to say no in every single case. Certainly some interesting responses over the weekend.
Ok, fine . . . I will give you that.It is also the beauty of being a Canadian, of being British, of being an Aussie, of being Dutch and so on.....
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
If there is going to be accountability then perhaps we should start at the beginning. In most cases the "wrongful prosecution" ball gets rolling when an overzealous (or lazy) detective jumps to a conclusion and decides on the guilty party before the evidence is in. Then they direct all of their energy on finding evidence to support their belief. Then they sell their one sided case to the Prosecutor.
I may be wrong but it seems like the detectives who decide to railroad an innocent party usually get immunity from being held liable for their actions.
No argument here. It certainly is one of the weak links. One of the areas that could use some accountability and repairs.
That would be one position, or address the reasons why prosecutions go bad. It is a tough position. On one side if you had a relative wrongly convicted, I wouldn't be in favor of it. On the other side, if say my daughter was murdered and it was beyond proof that they did it, I would be ok with some piece of mind and vengeance. That is why I can't say it is a absolute in my mind.
The same logic is used by those who want to ban all guns.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
So you think because there is mistakes in other cases abolish is the answer? What about in the case of say a situation like the fort hood shootings where guilt is not in question?
Sent from my - Fisher Price ABC - 123
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Sorry, but unless the person pleads guilty, guilt is always in question. It's why we have trials.
Not exactly true. There have been cases in our history involving coerced guilty pleas, and voluntary guilty pleas where the person was innocent.
I know you address this question to Ragman. Maybe he missed it. Your example is as you put it 'guilt is not in question'. I too posed the question about cases where there was no doubt. I believe I used the term '100 percent guilty'. I pretty much got a 'wow', a few snickers,(not candy bars )and a conniption from another for having the unmitigated gall for thinking that there are such cases with zero doubt. According to some,there is always doubt in every case and never an instance of absolute certain guilt. Even the Fort hood shooter.
That's a very generous position to take - considering you cannot rebut one single tactic I listed in the 'pro life' playbook, [and I'm sure I missed/forgot some others], nor defend the need to resort to deception.
If it's ok if people disagree, why keep trying to prevent them from acting upon their own beliefs? If they're wrong, and you're right, they will pay the price, and all those 'innocent babies' will be wrapped in the arms of angels, right? So why is that a problem for you?
It's a 'problem' you [generic you!] created, with your beliefs, but that doesn't give you the right to make it a problem for those whose beliefs are different. Especially when the opposing beliefs are based upon facts, and guaranteed by law, based upon the Constitution you [personal you!] claim to revere. Your beliefs are based upon religion, not facts. Your 'truth', not mine.
Your right to extend your fist goes no further than my nose - but yet you persist in infringing upon my rights, because of your 'beliefs'.
And you still can't defend the lies employed in the effort to impose those beliefs on others.