posted
But just because we don't address the root of where our crime comes from and put a stop to it doesn't mean we take the rights of the innocent away. Everyones right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness should never be taken away when they are doing nothing but being good citizens.
Ric
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ric: I guess that you think the Patriot Act doesn't go to far in taking away our civil liberties either. I think your are totally wrong. I do think the "one" sometimes out ways the group.
Art: Sometimes the interests of the individual are the same as those of the group. Free speech of an individual serves the nation (group) since it brings out good ideas that voters should consider, etc. The truth is good, no matter how bad (LOL). Free speech is the avenue to the truth, and benefits everyone even though it often ocffends many.
We always have to balance individual rights versus the nation's best interests. If the Patriot act inconveniences some as a necessary step toward saving death and destruction to others, then this must be weighed as to the greatest good for the greatest number.
posted
Ric:..... Drug addicts pumping out babies like candy making future criminals in this world. But no, lets not worry about the social underlining problems, lets put fear in its place and place everyone in jail and hopefully someone did something.
Art: Killing them might be better than jail - saves the expense of incarceration. What underlying social problems are you thinking about and what should we do? It boils down to an individual problem where the individual is responsible for correcting it. How do you get the individual to solve their own problems? You punish them for failure to do so (execution or incarceration)and reward them for success (a good life available to them if they work for it).
As soon as government helps an individual, you get problems, unless the help is restricted to helping them to help themselves and nothing more. Liberal policies don't restrict help this way. and cause more problems than they solve.
posted
A verdict is reach and will be announced at 4pm est. I think they got rid of the jury that wouldn't find him guilty. I think this quick of a verdict has to be guilty.
Since they got rid of the so called problem people, I believe its a 1st degree conviction now.
If so, I think a appeal grounds has been set.
Ric
[This message has been edited by Ric (edited November 12, 2004).]
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats not true but I do think your "conclusions" do have there place in punishment. If there isn't a conclusive evidence, I don't think the death penalty should be used. I don't think we should get rid of the death penality but it should be only used if there are conclusive evidence.
Ric
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think he did it, And you can't sit there after that verdict with no emotions without not being guilty. But are they 100% sure, and the answer is no. Not 100%. You don't need that to find someone guilty just beyond reasonable doubt. But I think a 100% sure has to be our goal for death penalty. There has been to many turned over lately to continue death in a case your can't prove 100%.
Ric
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ffor those wondering about his guilt, they need to ask thmselves why didn't he testify and face the jury and questioning?
Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats not right. Most people on trial are told by their counsel not to take the stand. It really is rare for the defendant to take the stand in any case. The Prosecution is great at making you guilty and making a fool out of you.
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ric: Thats not right. Most people on trial are told by their counsel not to take the stand. It really is rare for the defendant to take the stand in any case. The Prosecution is great at making you guilty and making a fool out of you.
Art: Sure, most prosecutors advise their clients to not take the stand, because the clients are guilty most of the time. It is not ethical for a defense attorney to allow a clint to take the stand unless the attorney feels his clint is innocent.
An innocent peson has nothing to fear from a prosecutor - the defense lawyer is ready to put the brakes on an aggressive prosecutor.
Peterson had no trouble proclaiming his innocence on TV shows - why didn't he testify?
posted
They said it on Court TV. Jury number 5 the ex foreman was not letting the group take a vote until he could go over all the evidence. It is speculation on why he was dismissed but he was slowing the verdict. If the rumor is true that he was intimated then it will be grounds for mistrial and this may have to happen all over again.
Ric
quote:Originally posted by Art: Art: "They got rid of the so called problem people" ?
Who got rid of them?
Didn't these people "get rid of themselves" by their own actions?
The woman juror who was dismissed said on TV that she agreed with the guilty verdict.
[This message has been edited by Art (edited November 12, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Ric (edited November 12, 2004).]
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean that I don't want this guy back on the streets myself but if there was problems in the jury room, he may be.
Posts: 4405 | From: Bristol, Tn, USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
