Science > Abortion > Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2005 11:27:02 PM |
| Object: |
Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
This woman should claim that she was only exercising her "right to choose"
and have the ACLU represent her in court.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12955752.htm
Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay
SAN FRANCISCO - A mentally ill woman seen dropping her three sons into San
Francisco Bay from a downtown pier was charged with three counts of murder
Thursday while anguished relatives kept vigil and rescuers combed the chilly
water for the bodies of two of the victims.
Lashuan T. Harris, 23, of Oakland, was held in a hospital jail ward after
police saw her pushing an empty baby stroller away from the pier where a
witness reported spotting a woman drop the children off the end Wednesday
night.
begin 666 spacer.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``$9&1@```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
.
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 04:17:07 PM |
|
|
Paul Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:ob0ol1t61kepng3rq2icbat57etmsmhjvi@4ax.com:
So, basically, you don't mind if innocent people get killed.
He didn't say that, but of course you don't care if innocents
are killed, as long as criminals do the killing. If you did,
you wouldn't be a liberal.
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 08:23:28 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Asmodeus
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> posting the following on Mon, 24 Oct
2005 16:17:07 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Paul Erickson <prerickson@houston.rr.com> wrote in
news:ob0ol1t61kepng3rq2icbat57etmsmhjvi@4ax.com:
So, basically, you don't mind if innocent people get killed.
He didn't say that, but of course you don't care if innocents
are killed, as long as criminals do the killing. If you did,
you wouldn't be a liberal.
wow, baseless name calling!
I'm not opposed to punishment. Hell, I'd like to see prison reform
that made serving hard time harder! But killing people is wrong if
there is even the sligfhtest chance that an error could be made in
determining guilt.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Asmodeus bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
25 Oct 2005 10:36:48 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:g62rl1h0hbdihbn996r4vufub04muaq1k9@4ax.com:
wow, baseless name calling!
Where?
--
/"\ ||
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN || Oderint Dum Metuant
X AGAINST HTML MAIL || VRWC Proud Life Member
/ \ AND POSTINGS || http://www.rightwingnation.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 09:00:31 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:59:25 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<jkuml11ajapnfnmhifnf91u5abp18jccdc@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:23:48 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<2rell11ksqu0q3u5sutqg59iv0rmq1ofs9@4ax.com> wrote:
What's so funny about peace, love and Asmodeus
<bondcATrightwingnationDOTcom> posting the following on Sat, 22 Oct
2005 16:32:09 -0500 iin alt.atheism?
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
news:csall1pglbu7u9cdloaihdqeqr7v2095cr@4ax.com:
I am glad the US is still on the list.
Thank God for that.
My objection to the death penalty is based on the fact that the
justice system does make mistakes. Innocent people are convicted, and
then proven innocent years, if not decades later.
We just had a case like that here in SF. A man convicted of raping a
13 year old girl was freed after DNA testing proved he couldn't have
been the attacker. For his nine years in prison, the state is
coughing up $350,000.
Which is silly.
It's the best they can do. They can't give the person those years back.
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Lock them up, and let them rot. It's cheaper too!
Not if the execution process is streamlined. How much does one bullet
cost?
Why bother with a justice system at all then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 11:25:18 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
BAAWA
a.a. #88
UU Minister # "=" - "Grand Equivocator of the Balanced Equal Sign"
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
"Surrendering To The Fall" - A blog about - what else? - me:
http://surrenderingtothefall.blogspot.com
(perpetually under construction)
~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=-=^-=~=^*=^=~-=^=-~=^=*^=~=-^=-=~^=*=^~=
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 02:40:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
23 Oct 2005 04:35:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 05:02:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:35:42 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<qg0ol1981ec1tsf00nsivqaj49e4qoml09@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
At some point the results of a trial must be accepted as valid.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 07:34:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:02:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<47cpl1lat3meii9cfu15nc5bq18fl3l2pm@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:35:42 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<qg0ol1981ec1tsf00nsivqaj49e4qoml09@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
At some point the results of a trial must be accepted as valid.
Yes, we try to do that, but the appeals process was invented because we
knew that the results of the trial could not be relied on as well as we
would like.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with. I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent. Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 03:42:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:34:05 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hpkpl1hc6dvfcsa6bnmivii0j5217kmr6m@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:02:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<47cpl1lat3meii9cfu15nc5bq18fl3l2pm@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:35:42 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<qg0ol1981ec1tsf00nsivqaj49e4qoml09@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
At some point the results of a trial must be accepted as valid.
Yes, we try to do that, but the appeals process was invented because we
knew that the results of the trial could not be relied on as well as we
would like.
That process is available in death penalty cases. In fact, it is
frequently used not to change the verdict but to delay the execution
and for no other purpose.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
24 Oct 2005 04:09:55 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:42:07 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<oehql1lv3356q462ef43pqckelcooecjvv@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:34:05 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hpkpl1hc6dvfcsa6bnmivii0j5217kmr6m@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:02:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<47cpl1lat3meii9cfu15nc5bq18fl3l2pm@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:35:42 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<qg0ol1981ec1tsf00nsivqaj49e4qoml09@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
At some point the results of a trial must be accepted as valid.
Yes, we try to do that, but the appeals process was invented because we
knew that the results of the trial could not be relied on as well as we
would like.
That process is available in death penalty cases. In fact, it is
frequently used not to change the verdict but to delay the execution
and for no other purpose.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time? How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
25 Oct 2005 03:57:18 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:09:55 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<s7jql15a49oe7pammpri0jrs6g4bs1hues@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:42:07 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<oehql1lv3356q462ef43pqckelcooecjvv@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:34:05 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hpkpl1hc6dvfcsa6bnmivii0j5217kmr6m@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:02:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<47cpl1lat3meii9cfu15nc5bq18fl3l2pm@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:35:42 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<qg0ol1981ec1tsf00nsivqaj49e4qoml09@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
At some point the results of a trial must be accepted as valid.
Yes, we try to do that, but the appeals process was invented because we
knew that the results of the trial could not be relied on as well as we
would like.
That process is available in death penalty cases. In fact, it is
frequently used not to change the verdict but to delay the execution
and for no other purpose.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion.
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 04:57:18 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<0ksrl1dcepedo0u48h4l1cbto7ked4shp3@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:09:55 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<s7jql15a49oe7pammpri0jrs6g4bs1hues@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:42:07 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<oehql1lv3356q462ef43pqckelcooecjvv@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:34:05 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hpkpl1hc6dvfcsa6bnmivii0j5217kmr6m@4ax.com> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 06:02:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<47cpl1lat3meii9cfu15nc5bq18fl3l2pm@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:35:42 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<qg0ol1981ec1tsf00nsivqaj49e4qoml09@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:40:26 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<cnpnl156tjhjg531pooo0cb8f58kltvndo@4ax.com>:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:25:18 -0400, Uncle Buck
<UncleBuck@SpamMeNot.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<08enl1hb1i8hgv0h90hetfdufkh1i8i1jb@4ax.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
Attila wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
With the death penalty, you can't rectifiy an error. In essence, the
state has murdered an innocent.
Wrong. Murder requires an illegal act. Execution of a convicted
criminal cannot be murder. Whether the person is eventually shown to
be innocent is irrelevant.
If you are convicted of murder and sentenced to die, will you not care
whether you did it?
Another point - if a convicted murderer is executed and then later found
innocent, doesn't that then mean the execution was of an innocent person and
then in a legal sense, it was not a legal act, and thus could properly be called
murder?
If someone is convicted and executed that execution is legal. It has
nothing to do with whether that person actually committed the crime or
not.
Who cares if there is justice, the trappings of justice are sufficient,
eh?
At some point the results of a trial must be accepted as valid.
Yes, we try to do that, but the appeals process was invented because we
knew that the results of the trial could not be relied on as well as we
would like.
That process is available in death penalty cases. In fact, it is
frequently used not to change the verdict but to delay the execution
and for no other purpose.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion.
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 04:11:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
Good.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Are you saying I am a religious fundamentalist?
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Are you saying I am a religious fundamentalist?
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
27 Oct 2005 08:36:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
It is far past time to rein in some parts of the legal system.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
Then you haven't been following the conversation.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
Limiting the number of appeals, the basis for appeals, and the time
frame allowed would be a good start.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Are you saying I am a religious fundamentalist?
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
Since this is not a religious topic I can only conclude your
definition of 'fundy' must include anyone who is not a liberal. That
would definitely include me.
I freely admit, as I have in the past many times, I am so far to the
right of Attila the Hun you can't find me with radar. I am a
conservative on everything but the freedom of choice and religion. I
support the freedom of choice and advocate the total removal of
religion from the public venue including all tax code involvement.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
Recognizing a system of law and not of man is the basis for any
rational society. Otherwise we would live at the whim of a king or
emperor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
27 Oct 2005 10:52:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:36:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<ebl1m19envoae1kh5dqa8kf4p7i2dg1fla@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
It is far past time to rein in some parts of the legal system.
How dare they offer justice to the accused!
Should Rush Limbaugh be in prison? He would be if he were poor.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
Then you haven't been following the conversation.
You keep repeating your desire to kill people without proper appeals.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
Limiting the number of appeals, the basis for appeals, and the time
frame allowed would be a good start.
Why? Just to save money? Is that really more important than the life of
an innocent man?
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Are you saying I am a religious fundamentalist?
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
Since this is not a religious topic I can only conclude your
definition of 'fundy' must include anyone who is not a liberal. That
would definitely include me.
No, I was merely pointing out that your behavior was the same as theirs.
I freely admit, as I have in the past many times, I am so far to the
right of Attila the Hun you can't find me with radar. I am a
conservative on everything but the freedom of choice and religion. I
support the freedom of choice and advocate the total removal of
religion from the public venue including all tax code involvement.
You are not a conservative. You are authoritarian, nearly totalitarian.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
Recognizing a system of law and not of man is the basis for any
rational society. Otherwise we would live at the whim of a king or
emperor.
Yet you are opposed to fair trials and fair appeals processes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
27 Oct 2005 03:18:48 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:52:15 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hlt1m1tu3kv8k230p9o1ffbi0d6qq26hfl@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:36:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<ebl1m19envoae1kh5dqa8kf4p7i2dg1fla@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
It is far past time to rein in some parts of the legal system.
How dare they offer justice to the accused!
Should Rush Limbaugh be in prison? He would be if he were poor.
That is a problem with the trial process.
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
Then you haven't been following the conversation.
You keep repeating your desire to kill people without proper appeals.
No, I have repeated my position several times.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
Limiting the number of appeals, the basis for appeals, and the time
frame allowed would be a good start.
Why? Just to save money?
Partly, ye.
Is that really more important than the life of
an innocent man?
It is no different than accepting a certain number of fatalities in
auto accidents.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Are you saying I am a religious fundamentalist?
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
Since this is not a religious topic I can only conclude your
definition of 'fundy' must include anyone who is not a liberal. That
would definitely include me.
No, I was merely pointing out that your behavior was the same as theirs.
This is not a religious topic.
I freely admit, as I have in the past many times, I am so far to the
right of Attila the Hun you can't find me with radar. I am a
conservative on everything but the freedom of choice and religion. I
support the freedom of choice and advocate the total removal of
religion from the public venue including all tax code involvement.
You are not a conservative. You are authoritarian, nearly totalitarian.
Probably, from your point of view.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
Recognizing a system of law and not of man is the basis for any
rational society. Otherwise we would live at the whim of a king or
emperor.
Yet you are opposed to fair trials and fair appeals processes.
No I am not. I am opposed to an insane interval between sentencing
and execution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
27 Oct 2005 03:35:24 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:18:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<aad2m199fev0dklk7gnnu5dkn43sm34g5c@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:52:15 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hlt1m1tu3kv8k230p9o1ffbi0d6qq26hfl@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:36:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<ebl1m19envoae1kh5dqa8kf4p7i2dg1fla@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
It is far past time to rein in some parts of the legal system.
How dare they offer justice to the accused!
Should Rush Limbaugh be in prison? He would be if he were poor.
That is a problem with the trial process.
Yes. The justice system has a number of components. It doesn't work
right unless all are working properly.
....
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
Then you haven't been following the conversation.
You keep repeating your desire to kill people without proper appeals.
No, I have repeated my position several times.
You have. Your haven't backed your claim with any support.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
Limiting the number of appeals, the basis for appeals, and the time
frame allowed would be a good start.
Why? Just to save money?
Partly, ye.
Is that really more important than the life of
an innocent man?
It is no different than accepting a certain number of fatalities in
auto accidents.
Yes, it is. It's more like making human sacrifices to the gods for a
good harvest.
.....
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
Since this is not a religious topic I can only conclude your
definition of 'fundy' must include anyone who is not a liberal. That
would definitely include me.
No, I was merely pointing out that your behavior was the same as theirs.
This is not a religious topic.
I didn't say it was. I said you were acting like religious zealots do.
I freely admit, as I have in the past many times, I am so far to the
right of Attila the Hun you can't find me with radar. I am a
conservative on everything but the freedom of choice and religion. I
support the freedom of choice and advocate the total removal of
religion from the public venue including all tax code involvement.
You are not a conservative. You are authoritarian, nearly totalitarian.
Probably, from your point of view.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
Recognizing a system of law and not of man is the basis for any
rational society. Otherwise we would live at the whim of a king or
emperor.
Yet you are opposed to fair trials and fair appeals processes.
No I am not. I am opposed to an insane interval between sentencing
and execution.
I've told you what it takes to get this changed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
27 Oct 2005 05:32:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:35:24 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<gae2m1hs75klj5m9lu03batk8dkgp4ihj5@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:18:48 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<aad2m199fev0dklk7gnnu5dkn43sm34g5c@4ax.com>:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:52:15 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<hlt1m1tu3kv8k230p9o1ffbi0d6qq26hfl@4ax.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:36:32 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<ebl1m19envoae1kh5dqa8kf4p7i2dg1fla@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
It is far past time to rein in some parts of the legal system.
How dare they offer justice to the accused!
Should Rush Limbaugh be in prison? He would be if he were poor.
That is a problem with the trial process.
Yes. The justice system has a number of components. It doesn't work
right unless all are working properly.
...
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
Then you haven't been following the conversation.
You keep repeating your desire to kill people without proper appeals.
No, I have repeated my position several times.
You have. Your haven't backed your claim with any support.
It is a position, not a claim. Try to keep up.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
Limiting the number of appeals, the basis for appeals, and the time
frame allowed would be a good start.
Why? Just to save money?
Partly, ye.
Is that really more important than the life of
an innocent man?
It is no different than accepting a certain number of fatalities in
auto accidents.
Yes, it is. It's more like making human sacrifices to the gods for a
good harvest.
No, it isn't. Unless those sacrifices were found guilty of violating
a law and sentenced under the law to die.
....
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
Since this is not a religious topic I can only conclude your
definition of 'fundy' must include anyone who is not a liberal. That
would definitely include me.
No, I was merely pointing out that your behavior was the same as theirs.
This is not a religious topic.
I didn't say it was. I said you were acting like religious zealots do.
Whatever that is.
I freely admit, as I have in the past many times, I am so far to the
right of Attila the Hun you can't find me with radar. I am a
conservative on everything but the freedom of choice and religion. I
support the freedom of choice and advocate the total removal of
religion from the public venue including all tax code involvement.
You are not a conservative. You are authoritarian, nearly totalitarian.
Probably, from your point of view.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
Recognizing a system of law and not of man is the basis for any
rational society. Otherwise we would live at the whim of a king or
emperor.
Yet you are opposed to fair trials and fair appeals processes.
No I am not. I am opposed to an insane interval between sentencing
and execution.
I've told you what it takes to get this changed.
Probably a Constitutional Amendment. Not being an attorney I have no
idea of what the mechanics would be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 10:46:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
Standing in the way of what would be a certain way of determining
guilt or innocence is against the basic concept of justice .
Otherwise there is no basis for either fining or jailing anyone based
upon that trial. Are you saying some convictions mean punishment and
some do not?
I'm saying that it appears from your comments that you like convictions
whether or not the person convicted is guilty of the crime they are
charged with.
No. I support a fair trial in every aspect. However I do not support
a long drawn out appeals process which results in the prisoner
expiring of old age before the sentence is carried out.
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
appeal but were wasting the court's time?
I have no idea but logic dictates it occurs.
I see.
Good.
I don't see a point from you, though.
Not my problem.
How did you determine that
they had no valid grounds for appeal?
The length of time spent in working the system.
Again, you show that you don't have any respect for the appellate
system.
I have no opinion alt all other than knowing the process is too slow.
Which means what? You cannot know that the process is too slow if you
cannot provide an alternative that works that is faster and no more
expensive.
Reduce the number of things that can be used for an appeal, limit the
number of appeals, and shorten the allowed time frame. To name three.
I do not. Like those in the past who developed our legal
system, I think that it is a serious problem for our nation if we
convict the innocent.
That should be addressed by the court system in the trial process and
not by the sentence process.
Given the weakness of the trial process, it would be absurd to refuse to
acknowledge it when considering sentencing.
It would be absurd to consider someone who has just been found guilty
as being innocent.
I reject your simplistic view of the world. Life is not as black and
white as religious fundamentalists claim.
Are you saying I am a religious fundamentalist?
I'm saying that you are acting like one in this area.
I am not religious at all, much less a fundamentalist. I am
conservative.
If so you just blew all of your credibility.
I'll take your comments about this seriously when you do something more
than spout talking points that could have come from a fundy.
They came from me, and there are a lot of people here who can tell you
I am anything but a fundie. Here being alt.abortion.
Executing the innocent shows a total lack of
willingness to abide by our own laws.
In what way? If someone is judged guilty in a court and the
proceeding is legal then the verdict is legal and can be carried out
under the law.
If the guilt is found because of prosecutorial misconduct, it is doubly
shameful for our country to put these innocent victims to death.
No system is perfect, and that seldom happens.
Your lack of respect for the judicial system is again noted.
I respect the system. After all, my support of the death penalty is
based upon and requires that respect.
I don't see that.
Why am I not surprised?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Mom charged with murder after allegedly throwing kids into SF Bay |
26 Oct 2005 11:40:55 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:46:47 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<0u8vl1l3bp1m309liv9561j6g1qen73rci@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:49:38 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0uul1duf9dpctr3isacdk8v63q38nsl98@4ax.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:11:53 -0400, in alt.atheism
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote in
<2phul15mponlffv394h3ssm7mto5mto1f1@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:22:03 -0500, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<7k8sl1pcfvl17te20eukoaojddesl43lc7@4ax.com> wrote:
Since the process takes years it is obvious the primary tactic is to
stall. Why should it take over ten years for an appeals process?
Because taxpayers are unwilling to provide enough courts and lawyers to
allow a faster process.
And defense lawyers use this as a legal tactic.
I understand there are associations of defense lawyers working on
insuring that if a working and effective lie detector is developed it
is never used in a courtroom since that would prove their client
innocent or guilty once and for all. They say this would be self
incrimination and therefore not allowed.
Yes, the Fifth Amendment is just another conspiracy against the
injustice that you are trying to impose.
Standing in the way of what would be a certain way of determining
guilt or innocence is against the basic concept of justice .
Bring the question up again if anyone ever invents a foolproof (no false
positives and no false negatives) lie detector.
....
How many people have died of natural causes when they had no valid
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
