| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" \- Prof. Jonez©" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2005 09:23:35 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
wordsmith@rocketmail.com wrote:
But is it *totally* subjective? Is there no objective component
to it at all? Sorry if these questions are elementary. You're
getting me to think about it, though, and that's important.
Well, to borrow a phrase from The Beaver, perhaps the US Legal
System has an "imaginary" component of Objectivity in the
Jury conviction standard.
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. at 13 and 17-20 (Approving
a charge that conveyed the concept that "absolute certainty is
unattainable in matters relating to human affairs" when the charge
said "'everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral
evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt'" ; and
approving that portion of the charge that stated that "a reasonable
doubt is not a mere possible doubt.")
This ain't Nebraska anymore Beav ...
And you failed to address California addendum to the standard "... to a moral
certainty"
Care to tell us how that differs from mere "reasonable doubt", and to whose
"morals" they are referring, and just how damn "certain" one must be ...?
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 09:26:46 PM |
|
|
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
wordsmith@rocketmail.com wrote:
But is it *totally* subjective? Is there no objective component
to it at all? Sorry if these questions are elementary. You're
getting me to think about it, though, and that's important.
Well, to borrow a phrase from The Beaver, perhaps the US Legal
System has an "imaginary" component of Objectivity in the
Jury conviction standard.
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
You do realize "reasonable" does not mean "able to reason" don't you?
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt? Or even an
unreasonable reason to doubt?
See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. at 13 and 17-20 (Approving
a charge that conveyed the concept that "absolute certainty is
unattainable in matters relating to human affairs" when the charge
said "'everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral
evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt'" ; and
approving that portion of the charge that stated that "a reasonable
doubt is not a mere possible doubt.")
This ain't Nebraska anymore Beav ...
No, but this is a Supreme Court case. Bzzzt!
And you failed to address California addendum to the standard "... to a moral
certainty"
Every court that has addressed this standard has rejected it, holding it
is higher than beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you want this to be the standard, fine. There's no reason it can't
be. But it isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 10:17:50 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
wordsmith@rocketmail.com wrote:
But is it *totally* subjective? Is there no objective
component
to it at all? Sorry if these questions are elementary.
You're getting me to think about it, though, and that's
important.
Well, to borrow a phrase from The Beaver, perhaps the US Legal
System has an "imaginary" component of Objectivity in the
Jury conviction standard.
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto
...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
You do realize "reasonable" does not mean "able to reason" don't you?
Of course it doesn't. Reasonable is the adjective created from the *noun*
"reason",
not from the verb "to reason".
Why can't you comprehend simple English grammar, Larry?
Did someone else take your Law School essays for you?
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt?
Perhaps they could, being that rational and reasonable are
not exact synonyms.
Good thin the Jury standard in the US doesn't state that
the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a RATIONAL doubt",
eh Larry?
Or even an unreasonable reason to doubt?
There is no such thing as an unREASONable REASON. It's
tautologically contradictory.
See Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. at 13 and 17-20 (Approving
a charge that conveyed the concept that "absolute certainty is
unattainable in matters relating to human affairs" when the charge
said "'everything relating to human affairs, and depending on
moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt'" ;
and
approving that portion of the charge that stated that "a
reasonable
doubt is not a mere possible doubt.")
This ain't Nebraska anymore Beav ...
No, but this is a Supreme Court case. Bzzzt!
T'was a joke ... Toto ...
And you failed to address California addendum to the standard "...
to a moral certainty"
Every court that has addressed this standard has rejected it, holding
it is higher than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh my! Has anyone notified Ahhhnold ...?
If you want this to be the standard, fine. There's no reason it can't
be. But it isn't.
It's hard enough actually proving a case BEYOND the Reason(s) a Juror may
doubt the guilt of the defendant. No need to inject "morals" or "certainty" into
the U$ JustUS system ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 10:19:15 PM |
|
|
In article <4Wn_e.69$FF4.1956@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt?
Perhaps they could, being that rational and reasonable are
not exact synonyms.
Good thin the Jury standard in the US doesn't state that
the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a RATIONAL doubt",
eh Larry?
Well, what makes something irrational? One thing would be that its not
reasonable.
Or even an unreasonable reason to doubt?
There is no such thing as an unREASONable REASON. It's
tautologically contradictory.
Stop saying this.
If I think the defendant didn't do it, because she's too pretty, (to
borrow Seth's example) is that reasonable?
It's hard enough actually proving a case BEYOND the Reason(s) a Juror may
doubt the guilt of the defendant. No need to inject "morals" or "certainty"
into
the U$ JustUS system ...
Not that hard. Most prosecutor's offices have 90%+ conviction rates.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Brain of Larry, NY's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 10:31:40 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <4Wn_e.69$FF4.1956@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt?
Perhaps they could, being that rational and reasonable are
not exact synonyms.
Good thin the Jury standard in the US doesn't state that
the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a RATIONAL doubt",
eh Larry?
Well, what makes something irrational? One thing would be that its
not reasonable.
***** sake Larry, you really don't have the semantic or grammatical
sense god gave a 8th grade publicly schooled republikan, do you?
Ir-rational = not rational, lacking rationality.
How fucking hard is that, Larry?
You can't possibly be a lawyer, much less a Public Prosecutor
sucking $$ from the NY taxpayers, no one is that stupid.
Or even an unreasonable reason to doubt?
There is no such thing as an unREASONable REASON. It's
tautologically contradictory.
Stop saying this.
No.
If I think the defendant didn't do it, because she's too pretty, (to
borrow Seth's example)
Can't posit your own examples, eh Larry?
is that reasonable?
If it is based upon REASON, it is REASONable.
How fucking hard it that to comprehend, moron?
It's hard enough actually proving a case BEYOND the Reason(s) a
Juror may doubt the guilt of the defendant. No need to inject
"morals" or "certainty" into
the U$ JustUS system ...
Not that hard. Most prosecutor's offices have 90%+ conviction rates.
Because imbeciles and morons like you get chosen for Jury duty ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Brain of Larry, NY's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 10:33:14 PM |
|
|
In article <%6o_e.75$FF4.2360@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <4Wn_e.69$FF4.1956@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt?
Perhaps they could, being that rational and reasonable are
not exact synonyms.
Good thin the Jury standard in the US doesn't state that
the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a RATIONAL doubt",
eh Larry?
Well, what makes something irrational? One thing would be that its
not reasonable.
***** sake Larry, you really don't have the semantic or grammatical
sense god gave a 8th grade publicly schooled republikan, do you?
Ir-rational = not rational, lacking rationality.
How fucking hard is that, Larry?
You can't possibly be a lawyer, much less a Public Prosecutor
sucking $$ from the NY taxpayers, no one is that stupid.
Or even an unreasonable reason to doubt?
There is no such thing as an unREASONable REASON. It's
tautologically contradictory.
Stop saying this.
No.
If I think the defendant didn't do it, because she's too pretty, (to
borrow Seth's example)
Can't posit your own examples, eh Larry?
is that reasonable?
If it is based upon REASON, it is REASONable.
How fucking hard it that to comprehend, moron?
Assuming a causation when there is merely a correlation is not basing
the doubt on reason. Having a doubt based on things not in evidence are
not based on reason.
There's a difference in "reason" and "a reason."
If a doubt is based on REASON, it is REASONable. But if is simply based
on A reason to believe it, it might not be reasonable.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Brain of Larry, NY's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 02:17:33 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <%6o_e.75$FF4.2360@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <4Wn_e.69$FF4.1956@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt?
Perhaps they could, being that rational and reasonable are
not exact synonyms.
Good thin the Jury standard in the US doesn't state that
the prosecution must prove their case "beyond a RATIONAL doubt",
eh Larry?
Well, what makes something irrational? One thing would be that
its not reasonable.
***** sake Larry, you really don't have the semantic or grammatical
sense god gave a 8th grade publicly schooled republikan, do you?
Ir-rational = not rational, lacking rationality.
How fucking hard is that, Larry?
You can't possibly be a lawyer, much less a Public Prosecutor
sucking $$ from the NY taxpayers, no one is that stupid.
Or even an unreasonable reason to doubt?
There is no such thing as an unREASONable REASON. It's
tautologically contradictory.
Stop saying this.
No.
If I think the defendant didn't do it, because she's too pretty,
(to borrow Seth's example)
Can't posit your own examples, eh Larry?
is that reasonable?
If it is based upon REASON, it is REASONable.
How fucking hard it that to comprehend, moron?
Assuming a causation when there is merely a correlation is not basing
the doubt on reason.
Sounds like you're describing religion again ... why do you always digress
to that when trying to exemplify "unreasonable" and/or "irrational", eh?
Having a doubt based on things not in evidence
are not based on reason.
Are your completely daft? Do you even read what you post?
If they have REASON to doubt, they have REASONable doubt, whether or not
they base it upon things not in evidence doesn't change that fact.
Do you set out to (re)prove the theory of gravity and the irreversible linearity
of time in every case you present, or are the jurors allowed to base
their decisions upon commonly accepted basic realities that weren't directly
presented into evidence, eh jackass?
There's a difference in "reason" and "a reason."
Yes, there is, the indefinite article "a" ...
If a doubt is based on REASON, it is REASONable. But if is simply
based on A reason to believe it, it might not be reasonable.
Utterly, and hysterically, false. How can you be as abjectly stupid and
ignorant as you are and claim to be a NY Prosecutor/Lawyer?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 02:26:06 AM |
|
|
\"- Prof. Jonez©\" wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
wordsmith@rocketmail.com wrote:
But is it *totally* subjective? Is there no objective
component
to it at all? Sorry if these questions are elementary.
You're getting me to think about it, though, and that's
important.
Well, to borrow a phrase from The Beaver, perhaps the US Legal
System has an "imaginary" component of Objectivity in the
Jury conviction standard.
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror
must be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto
...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
You do realize "reasonable" does not mean "able to reason" don't you?
Of course it doesn't. Reasonable is the adjective created from the *noun*
"reason", not from the verb "to reason".
Why can't you comprehend simple English grammar, Larry?
Did someone else take your Law School essays for you?
Why can't someone have an irrational reason to doubt?
Perhaps they could, being that rational and reasonable are
not exact synonyms.
Jonezy is, as usual, quite right here. "Reasonable" doubt allows for
the intuitive and by necessity, the subjective. We'd like to think that
reasonable and rational are one in the same -- at least as it applies to
jury determinations -- to comport with the concept of equal protection
under law. However, I would suggest that this is just another building
block in a system designed to ensure that no innocent man is convicted.
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational man
would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the Court can
grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures up 'doubt' that a
rational man would laugh at, the defendant still walks. As a matter of
policy, we'll accept that a number of guilty men will go free, as long
as no truly innocent man is unjustly convicted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RHR" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 08:00:03 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:26:06 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational man
would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the Court can
grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures up 'doubt' that a
rational man would laugh at, the defendant still walks. As a matter of
policy, we'll accept that a number of guilty men will go free, as long
as no truly innocent man is unjustly convicted.
There is no data, but I'd wager that the percentage of innocent that
are found guilty is close to the percentage of guilty that go free. As
the Beav will explain (and unfortunately defend), trials in the US are
not about finding the truth.
I have often quoted Judge Richard Posner, in his review of Pizzi's
"Trials Without Truth", on this:
(Times of London Literary Supplement, Feb. 7, 1999), "It has become
commonplace that an innocent person has a better chance of acquittal
in a European than in an American court, and a guilty person, a better
chance of acquittal in an American than in a European court".
RHR
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Beaver" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 09:50:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:00:03 -0400, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:26:06 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational man
would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the Court can
grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures up 'doubt' that a
rational man would laugh at, the defendant still walks. As a matter of
policy, we'll accept that a number of guilty men will go free, as long
as no truly innocent man is unjustly convicted.
There is no data, but I'd wager that the percentage of innocent that
are found guilty is close to the percentage of guilty that go free. As
the Beav will explain (and unfortunately defend), trials in the US are
not about finding the truth.
It's not a question of preferring or "defending" any legal system. If
you don't see the difference between the existence of a fact and the
proof of it, you are just missing an intellectual cog.
I have often quoted Judge Richard Posner, in his review of Pizzi's
"Trials Without Truth", on this:
(Times of London Literary Supplement, Feb. 7, 1999), "It has become
commonplace that an innocent person has a better chance of acquittal
in a European than in an American court, and a guilty person, a better
chance of acquittal in an American than in a European court".
Would you stand still for being told that you have to drive a Ford
because it's a better car? Whether a defendant wants a jury trial is
his choice.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 11:28:54 AM |
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:00:03 -0400, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:26:06 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational
man would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the
Court can grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures
up 'doubt' that a rational man would laugh at, the defendant
still walks. As a matter of policy, we'll accept that a number
of guilty men will go free, as long as no truly innocent man is
unjustly convicted.
There is no data, but I'd wager that the percentage of innocent that
are found guilty is close to the percentage of guilty that go free.
As the Beav will explain (and unfortunately defend), trials in the
US are not about finding the truth.
It's not a question of preferring or "defending" any legal system. If
you don't see the difference between the existence of a fact and the
proof of it, you are just missing an intellectual cog.
Kind of like how the religious nutter Evolution deniers have completely
stripped their gearset as it were, eh?
I have often quoted Judge Richard Posner, in his review of Pizzi's
"Trials Without Truth", on this:
(Times of London Literary Supplement, Feb. 7, 1999), "It has become
commonplace that an innocent person has a better chance of acquittal
in a European than in an American court, and a guilty person, a
better chance of acquittal in an American than in a European court".
Would you stand still for being told that you have to drive a Ford
because it's a better car?
Any color you want ... as long as it is black?
Whether a defendant wants a jury trial is
his choice.
And whether the defendant gets prosecuted at all, and how heavy handed
the charges are, is of course the choice of the persecutor.
- Jon Beaver
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 10:26:01 AM |
|
|
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:00:03 -0400, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:26:06 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational man
would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the Court can
grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures up 'doubt' that a
rational man would laugh at, the defendant still walks. As a matter of
policy, we'll accept that a number of guilty men will go free, as long
as no truly innocent man is unjustly convicted.
There is no data, but I'd wager that the percentage of innocent that
are found guilty is close to the percentage of guilty that go free. As
the Beav will explain (and unfortunately defend), trials in the US are
not about finding the truth.
It's not a question of preferring or "defending" any legal system. If
you don't see the difference between the existence of a fact and the
proof of it, you are just missing an intellectual cog.
It's more a matter of "socialism versus capitalism." In Continental
legal systems, you get the same justice regardless of social status, as
the judge's charge is to find the truth, and lawyers have a muted role
in the proceedings. In the American system, you only get about as much
justice as you can afford. Which is the better system depends in large
part on where you sit on the social pecking order.
I have often quoted Judge Richard Posner, in his review of Pizzi's
"Trials Without Truth", on this:
(Times of London Literary Supplement, Feb. 7, 1999), "It has become
commonplace that an innocent person has a better chance of acquittal
in a European than in an American court, and a guilty person, a better
chance of acquittal in an American than in a European court".
Would you stand still for being told that you have to drive a Ford
because it's a better car? Whether a defendant wants a jury trial is
his choice.
At Risch's level of abstraction, it is a question of whether the Ford
is a better car than the Mercedes on the other side of the pond. Right
now, the American legal system looks a lot like Axel Foley's crappy blue
Chevy Nova.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guardenman" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 03:05:20 PM |
|
|
"Ken Smith" <forget@it.com> wrote in message news:433AB599.10905@it.com...
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:00:03 -0400, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:26:06 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational man
would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the Court can
grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures up 'doubt' that a
rational man would laugh at, the defendant still walks. As a matter of
policy, we'll accept that a number of guilty men will go free, as long
as no truly innocent man is unjustly convicted.
There is no data, but I'd wager that the percentage of innocent that
are found guilty is close to the percentage of guilty that go free. As
the Beav will explain (and unfortunately defend), trials in the US are
not about finding the truth.
It's not a question of preferring or "defending" any legal system. If
you don't see the difference between the existence of a fact and the
proof of it, you are just missing an intellectual cog.
It's more a matter of "socialism versus capitalism." In Continental
legal systems, you get the same justice regardless of social status, as
the judge's charge is to find the truth, and lawyers have a muted role in
the proceedings. In the American system, you only get about as much
justice as you can afford. Which is the better system depends in large
part on where you sit on the social pecking order.
I have often quoted Judge Richard Posner, in his review of Pizzi's
"Trials Without Truth", on this:
(Times of London Literary Supplement, Feb. 7, 1999), "It has become
commonplace that an innocent person has a better chance of acquittal
in a European than in an American court, and a guilty person, a better
chance of acquittal in an American than in a European court".
Would you stand still for being told that you have to drive a Ford
because it's a better car? Whether a defendant wants a jury trial is
his choice.
At Risch's level of abstraction, it is a question of whether the Ford is
a better car than the Mercedes on the other side of the pond. Right now,
the American legal system looks a lot like Axel Foley's crappy blue Chevy
Nova.
Wasn't it a crappy Blue Cadillac?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 08:26:58 AM |
|
|
RHR wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:26:06 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
Think about it: If a jury convicts in spite of what any rational man
would admit is rational doubt (and therefore reasonable), the Court can
grant a motion for j.n.o.v. But if the jury conjures up 'doubt' that a
rational man would laugh at, the defendant still walks. As a matter of
policy, we'll accept that a number of guilty men will go free, as long
as no truly innocent man is unjustly convicted.
There is no data, but I'd wager that the percentage of innocent that
are found guilty is close to the percentage of guilty that go free. As
the Beav will explain (and unfortunately defend), trials in the US are
not about finding the truth.
I have often quoted Judge Richard Posner, in his review of Pizzi's
"Trials Without Truth", on this:
(Times of London Literary Supplement, Feb. 7, 1999), "It has become
commonplace that an innocent person has a better chance of acquittal
in a European than in an American court, and a guilty person, a better
chance of acquittal in an American than in a European court".
That our system doesn't work -- and will likely never work unless and
until prosecutors and judges are held personally accountable for their
actions -- is beside the point. Our system will work, but only when it
works as designed. Prosecutors have to have more character than those
who would unseal protestors' arrest records in the hope that the judge
will hand out a heavier sentence on that account....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Seth Breidbart" |
|
| Title: Re: The Imaginary Beaver -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 09:56:47 PM |
|
|
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\" <!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Their reason might not be reasonable.
"I doubt she did it because she's too good-looking" is a (very bad)
reason to doubt. But it doesn't cause a reasonable doubt.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 10:25:21 PM |
|
|
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto
...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
Their reason might not be reasonable.
Logically and Semantically impossible.
"I doubt she did it because she's too good-looking" is a (very bad)
reason to doubt.
Yet, still REASONable to that person/Juror proclaiming it.
But it doesn't cause a reasonable doubt.
Sure is does, just not to you.
Fortunately you, the infamous Seth Breidbart, don't get to
determine what is and isn't reasonable for other Jurors,
unless you're contemplating extending a mind-reading
variant of your censorious BI into Jury deliberation rooms
across the USA.
Seth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
27 Sep 2005 10:30:44 PM |
|
|
In article <51o_e.71$FF4.2324@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each juror
must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso facto
...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
Their reason might not be reasonable.
Logically and Semantically impossible.
Why?
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on Thursday, I
would have a reason to think the players play harder on Thursdays. But
is this reasonable?
Well, *you* probably think it is. But most people would realize it
isn't.
"I doubt she did it because she's too good-looking" is a (very bad)
reason to doubt.
Yet, still REASONable to that person/Juror proclaiming it.
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment. A little critical self-
analysis is all we're asking for.
But it doesn't cause a reasonable doubt.
Sure is does, just not to you.
Fortunately you, the infamous Seth Breidbart, don't get to
determine what is and isn't reasonable for other Jurors,
unless you're contemplating extending a mind-reading
variant of your censorious BI into Jury deliberation rooms
across the USA.
You're completely missing the point that the reasonable doubt must be
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE or lack of evidence. If there is nothing in
evidence showing that good-looking people commit less crime, that reason
is NOT reasonable because there is nothing in the evidence to support
it. It's just speculation.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 02:33:50 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <51o_e.71$FF4.2324@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Seth Breidbart wrote:
In article <k7n_e.51$FF4.2048@news.uswest.net>, \"- Prof. Jonez©\"
<!> wrote:
Jon Beaver wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:41:40 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
You're confused. The standard for conviction is that each
juror must
be personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Yep, and if they have a reason to doubt, then they have, ipso
facto ...
you guessed it! -- ReasonABLE Doubt.
Wrong.
Nope.
Their reason might not be reasonable.
Logically and Semantically impossible.
Why?
Because it is, tautologically.
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on Thursday, I
would have a reason to think the players play harder on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence with
causation isn't surprising.
But is this reasonable?
Not much of what you post is reasonable. It's actually quite stupid.
Well, *you* probably think it is. But most people would realize it
isn't.
"I doubt she did it because she's too good-looking" is a (very
bad) reason to doubt.
Yet, still REASONable to that person/Juror proclaiming it.
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment.
A little critical self- analysis is all we're asking for.
Like asking a Court to reverse itself?
Too bad the Legal Standard for Jury Conviction in the USA
doesn't state - "beyond a reasonable doubt ... after you pause and
consider that Larry thinks you are being unreasonable and wants
a little critical self-analysis ..." LOL!
But it doesn't cause a reasonable doubt.
Sure is does, just not to you.
Fortunately you, the infamous Seth Breidbart, don't get to
determine what is and isn't reasonable for other Jurors,
unless you're contemplating extending a mind-reading
variant of your censorious BI into Jury deliberation rooms
across the USA.
You're completely missing the point that the reasonable doubt must be
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE or lack of evidence.
Nope, nothing missed there at all.
If there is nothing in
evidence showing that good-looking people commit less crime, that
reason is NOT reasonable
All reason is reasonABLE, ipso facto.
because there is nothing in the evidence to
support it. It's just speculation.
Yet if the Juror has a reason to doubt the guilt of the defendant,
then they have REASONable doubt. Are you claiming jurors cannot
make veracity judgments based upon the "demeanor" of the witnesses,
based upon their own personal human experience, without the lawyers
presenting psycho-emotional history of mankind into evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 09:08:33 PM |
|
|
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on Thursday, I
would have a reason to think the players play harder on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence with
causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
In other words "it's Thursday" is a reason to think the team will win
today. But it's not reasonable.
Thanks for seeing the light.
....
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment.
A little critical self- analysis is all we're asking for.
Like asking a Court to reverse itself?
Happens all the time. Every procedural code I know of, civil and
criminal, has a process to file a motion to reargue a decision.
....
You're completely missing the point that the reasonable doubt must be
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE or lack of evidence.
Nope, nothing missed there at all.
If there is nothing in
evidence showing that good-looking people commit less crime, that
reason is NOT reasonable
All reason is reasonABLE, ipso facto.
because there is nothing in the evidence to
support it. It's just speculation.
Yet if the Juror has a reason to doubt the guilt of the defendant,
then they have REASONable doubt.
The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If it is
based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt.
Are you claiming jurors cannot
make veracity judgments based upon the "demeanor" of the witnesses,
based upon their own personal human experience, without the lawyers
presenting psycho-emotional history of mankind into evidence?
Of course not. Jurors must use their life experiences and common sense
in evaluating the credibility of the evidence, including the witnesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guardenman" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 03:10:52 PM |
|
|
"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-4FD7CD.22083128092005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on Thursday, I
would have a reason to think the players play harder on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence with
causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
In other words "it's Thursday" is a reason to think the team will win
today. But it's not reasonable.
Thanks for seeing the light.
No it isn't. You have to look at all the evidence. If they have played
nothing but terrible teams on Thursday, but this week they play an
undefeated defending champion it is not reasonable to believe they will win
just because it is Thursday.
...
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment.
A little critical self- analysis is all we're asking for.
Like asking a Court to reverse itself?
Happens all the time. Every procedural code I know of, civil and
criminal, has a process to file a motion to reargue a decision.
...
You're completely missing the point that the reasonable doubt must be
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE or lack of evidence.
Nope, nothing missed there at all.
If there is nothing in
evidence showing that good-looking people commit less crime, that
reason is NOT reasonable
All reason is reasonABLE, ipso facto.
because there is nothing in the evidence to
support it. It's just speculation.
Yet if the Juror has a reason to doubt the guilt of the defendant,
then they have REASONable doubt.
The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If it is
based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt.
Are you claiming jurors cannot
make veracity judgments based upon the "demeanor" of the witnesses,
based upon their own personal human experience, without the lawyers
presenting psycho-emotional history of mankind into evidence?
Of course not. Jurors must use their life experiences and common sense
in evaluating the credibility of the evidence, including the witnesses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The UnReasonable Seth Breidbart -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 07:02:33 PM |
|
|
In article <GZg%e.192$ES.108@fe07.lga>,
"Guardenman" <m.frisch@charter.net> wrote:
"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-4FD7CD.22083128092005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on Thursday, I
would have a reason to think the players play harder on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence with
causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
In other words "it's Thursday" is a reason to think the team will win
today. But it's not reasonable.
Thanks for seeing the light.
No it isn't. You have to look at all the evidence. If they have played
nothing but terrible teams on Thursday, but this week they play an
undefeated defending champion it is not reasonable to believe they will win
just because it is Thursday.
Jonez seems to think that because someone thought it, it must therefore
be reasonable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
28 Sep 2005 10:02:59 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on
Thursday, I would have a reason to think the players play harder
on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence with
causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
Admit what?
In other words "it's Thursday" is a reason to think the team will win
today. But it's not reasonable.
It can't be both REASONable and unREASONable, Larry.
It may be DEAD WRONG, but if it was based upon REASON, then it was,
ipso fucking facto, REASONable.
Thanks for seeing the light.
Just how fucking stupid are you Larry?
Did you even graduate high school grammar class?
...
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment.
A little critical self- analysis is all we're asking for.
Like asking a Court to reverse itself?
Happens all the time. Every procedural code I know of, civil and
criminal, has a process to file a motion to reargue a decision.
And it happens exactly how often?
...
You're completely missing the point that the reasonable doubt
must be BASED ON THE EVIDENCE or lack of evidence.
Nope, nothing missed there at all.
If there is nothing in
evidence showing that good-looking people commit less crime, that
reason is NOT reasonable
All reason is reasonABLE, ipso facto.
because there is nothing in the evidence to
support it. It's just speculation.
Yet if the Juror has a reason to doubt the guilt of the defendant,
then they have REASONable doubt.
The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If it is
based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt.
Now you are starting to comprehend that words do have meaning and difference.
That's the closest you've come to making an accurate statement, but of course
you still ***** up in the end. If as you say it was REASONable, but based upon
extraneous evidence that should not have been considered, then it may
not have been a justifiable verdict, but it certainly was REASONable.
Are you claiming jurors cannot
make veracity judgments based upon the "demeanor" of the witnesses,
based upon their own personal human experience, without the lawyers
presenting psycho-emotional history of mankind into evidence?
Of course not. Jurors must use their life experiences and common
sense in evaluating the credibility of the evidence, including the
witnesses.
Yet you pontificated repeatedly, and laughably so, that the Jury can
"only consider the evidence presented at trial" and nothing more,
and nothing less. So which is it Larry, were you a stammering ineloquent
jackass then, or are you being a self-contradictory imbecile now?
Here's your quote from this very post:
"The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If it is
based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt."
So which is it Larry? Absolute forensic sterility of nothing but the evidence
presented
at trial, or can the Jurors bring their own human experience and knowledge
to bear on the verdict?
Which is it Larry?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 07:00:15 PM |
|
|
In article <7PI_e.58$Be5.1009@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on
Thursday, I would have a reason to think the players play harder
on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence with
causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
Admit what?
That having a reason to doubt does not mean that there is reasonable
doubt. The reason may be an unreasonable one - such as, it's Thursday,
so my team plays harder. That's a reason to believe something, but it
is not a reasonable reason, since we all know the two are not related.
In other words "it's Thursday" is a reason to think the team will win
today. But it's not reasonable.
It can't be both REASONable and unREASONable, Larry.
It may be DEAD WRONG, but if it was based upon REASON, then it was,
ipso fucking facto, REASONable.
So you think it is reasonable to say "since my favorite team hasn't lost
on a Thursday, the players try harder on Thursdays."? Answer in one
word. Is this "reasonable" or "unreasonable"?
....
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment.
A little critical self- analysis is all we're asking for.
Like asking a Court to reverse itself?
Happens all the time. Every procedural code I know of, civil and
criminal, has a process to file a motion to reargue a decision.
And it happens exactly how often?
Pretty often, that I know of. Motions to reargue are fairly routine
from the losing side of a motion or argument. But I don't know of
anyone who keeps stats on this.
The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If it is
based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt.
Now you are starting to comprehend that words do have meaning and difference.
That's the closest you've come to making an accurate statement, but of course
you still ***** up in the end. If as you say it was REASONable, but based upon
extraneous evidence that should not have been considered, then it may
not have been a justifiable verdict, but it certainly was REASONable.
So something can be reasonable but unjustified? The evidence does not
justify the verdict, but it was reasonable nonetheless? And I'm the one
playing word games?
Yet you pontificated repeatedly, and laughably so, that the Jury can
"only consider the evidence presented at trial" and nothing more,
and nothing less. So which is it Larry, were you a stammering ineloquent
jackass then, or are you being a self-contradictory imbecile now?
Here's your quote from this very post:
"The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If it is
based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt."
So which is it Larry? Absolute forensic sterility of nothing but the evidence
presented
at trial, or can the Jurors bring their own human experience and knowledge
to bear on the verdict?
Which is it Larry?
It's a mix of the two.
The jurors use their common sense and life experiences to evaluate the
evidence. But if something that you might think is common sense is
actually an element of the crime, it must be proven by evidence.
Look, Jonez, all the rest of us are just trying to tell you what the law
is. We're not giving you our personal opinions (without clearly
labeling it so), we're just telling you what it IS. No one is saying
current definitions of beyond a reasonable doubt are good or bad, too
strict or too lenient.
But we're trying - desperately - to educate you. And you respond with
personal insults. Why? Are you that insecure in your thoughts that you
can't defend them on the merits other than to repeat "Ipso facto" until
you get carpal-tunnel?
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 08:55:20 PM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <7PI_e.58$Be5.1009@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on
Thursday, I would have a reason to think the players play
harder
on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence
with causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
Admit what?
That having a reason to doubt does not mean that there is reasonable
doubt.
Clearly is does, ipso facto.
If you claim otherwise, post a citation to law in opposition.
The reason may be an unreasonable one -
There can't be an unREASONable REASON, jackass.
How fucking stupid are you, Larry?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
Without the one, there cannot be the other.
such as, it's
Thursday,
so my team plays harder. That's a reason to believe something, but it
is not a reasonable reason, since we all know the two are not related.
Your reason may be WRONG, IN ERROR, or NOT CORRECT,
but the fact that you stated/claimed to have based your decision
on a REASON, makes even your wrong decision REASONable,
ipso facto.
Just how ignorant of elementary English language and grammar
are you Larry? How could an imbecile like you have possibly
made it into ANY law school, much less graduated, eh?
In other words "it's Thursday" is a reason to think the team will
win today. But it's not reasonable.
It can't be both REASONable and unREASONable, Larry.
It may be DEAD WRONG, but if it was based upon REASON, then it was,
ipso fucking facto, REASONable.
So you think it is reasonable to say "since my favorite team hasn't
lost
on a Thursday, the players try harder on Thursdays."? Answer in one
word. Is this "reasonable" or "unreasonable"?
It's reasonable to YOU, the idiot who made such a statement. It may
be unreasonable to OTHERS, and it may even be WRONG, but
fortunately the U$ standard for guilt isn't that individual Jurors
must find guilt "beyond the doubt of some other person who may
not agree with your personal reasoning ..." now does it Larry?
...
Not if they pause to consider it for a moment.
A little critical self- analysis is all we're asking for.
Like asking a Court to reverse itself?
Happens all the time. Every procedural code I know of, civil and
criminal, has a process to file a motion to reargue a decision.
And it happens exactly how often?
Pretty often, that I know of. Motions to reargue are fairly routine
from the losing side of a motion or argument. But I don't know of
anyone who keeps stats on this.
Not motions numbnuts, how many times does a given
court reverse itself on an instant case before it, eh?
The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If
it is based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not
a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt.
Now you are starting to comprehend that words do have meaning and
difference. That's the closest you've come to making an accurate
statement, but of course you still ***** up in the end. If as you
say it was REASONable, but based upon extraneous evidence that
should not have been considered, then it may
not have been a justifiable verdict, but it certainly was
REASONable.
So something can be reasonable but unjustified?
Now you're starting to grasp the simple truth of the matter.
The evidence does not
justify the verdict, but it was reasonable nonetheless?
Yep, it could be REASONable to the Juror/Jury who
made the determination, and yet it could be absolutely
WRONG.
It was REASONable for men to conclude, based on
the little evidence they had, that the Earth was Flat,
and/or that the Sun orbited around the Earth. They
did so, using REASON, for 1000s of years, Larry.
Turns out they were dead WRONG, especially
in light of new discoveries and science, but at
the time and based solely on the evidence they
had available, it was REASONable to make such
an erroneous conclusion, now wasn't it Larry, o'
King of Erroneous Conclusions?
And I'm the
one playing word games?
English ain't your first language, is it moron?
Yet you pontificated repeatedly, and laughably so, that the Jury can
"only consider the evidence presented at trial" and nothing more,
and nothing less. So which is it Larry, were you a stammering
ineloquent jackass then, or are you being a self-contradictory
imbecile now?
Here's your quote from this very post:
"The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If
it is based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not
a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt."
So which is it Larry? Absolute forensic sterility of nothing but
the evidence presented
at trial, or can the Jurors bring their own human experience and
knowledge to bear on the verdict?
Which is it Larry?
It's a mix of the two.
So you were DEAD wrong when you repeated made
your earlier claims of Forensic Sterility, eh Larry?
The jurors use their common sense and life experiences to evaluate the
evidence.
Yet, you claimed they could ONLY USE the evidence
presented in court, NOTHING MORE, nothing less.
Thanks for admitting you were, once again, a stammering
idiot in your proclamations.
But if something that you might think is common sense is
actually an element of the crime, it must be proven by evidence.
Look, Jonez, all the rest of us are just trying to tell you what the
law is.
Naw Larry, no one stands with you, despite your desperate need
for outside support. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper
bag ... with a compass and a flashlight.
You've failed to cite a single legal
definition for "beyond reasonable doubt" that contradicts
the irrefutable fact that if a Juror has REASON to Doubt,
they, ipso facto, have REASONable Doubt.
So stop your stammering and digression into what you think
is your expertise in Drug law, and stay on topic -- post your
legal citation to the objective, accepted legal definition of
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that contradicts what I've posted.
Go ahead Larry -- post it here:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
29 Sep 2005 09:20:32 PM |
|
|
In article <lU0%e.84$3X4.5926@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <7PI_e.58$Be5.1009@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <GcC_e.41$mO4.312@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
If my favorite baseball team wins every game it plays on
Thursday, I would have a reason to think the players play
harder
on Thursdays.
That an idiot like you would erroneously confuse coincidence
with causation isn't surprising.
So you admit it!
Admit what?
That having a reason to doubt does not mean that there is reasonable
doubt.
Clearly is does, ipso facto.
If you claim otherwise, post a citation to law in opposition.
It's your claim. Post a citation to the law upholding your definition.
There can't be an unREASONable REASON, jackass.
Sure there can be.
I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is my least
favorite letter.
That's a reason to dislike the flavor, but its not a reasonable one, is
it?
How fucking stupid are you, Larry?
Reasonable is the adjective derived from the noun Reason.
Just because we label a statement "a reason" does not necessarily mean
it also is reasonable. Why can't you see this?
Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And landed in
a puddle."
Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons. They sound ridiculous."
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them! They're reasons! Therefore, they
must be REASONABLE!"
....
So you think it is reasonable to say "since my favorite team hasn't
lost
on a Thursday, the players try harder on Thursdays."? Answer in one
word. Is this "reasonable" or "unreasonable"?
It's reasonable to YOU, the idiot who made such a statement. It may
be unreasonable to OTHERS, and it may even be WRONG, but
fortunately the U$ standard for guilt isn't that individual Jurors
must find guilt "beyond the doubt of some other person who may
not agree with your personal reasoning ..." now does it Larry?
Just because someone labels a thought or opinion as "a reason" does not
mean it is one. Causal relationships can be proven in some cases, and
if I blame something other than the provable cause, that is not the
"reason" something happened.
Happens all the time. Every procedural code I know of, civil and
criminal, has a process to file a motion to reargue a decision.
And it happens exactly how often?
Pretty often, that I know of. Motions to reargue are fairly routine
from the losing side of a motion or argument. But I don't know of
anyone who keeps stats on this.
Not motions numbnuts, how many times does a given
court reverse itself on an instant case before it, eh?
What do you think a "motion" is?
A court won't decide something, then for no reason change its mind. But
if a court decides an issue, and a party says "Judge, I think you got it
wrong, and here's why..." the court may indeed reverse itself. That
would be a motion to reargue or reconsider.
The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If
it is based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not
a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt.
Now you are starting to comprehend that words do have meaning and
difference. That's the closest you've come to making an accurate
statement, but of course you still ***** up in the end. If as you
say it was REASONable, but based upon extraneous evidence that
should not have been considered, then it may
not have been a justifiable verdict, but it certainly was
REASONable.
So something can be reasonable but unjustified?
Now you're starting to grasp the simple truth of the matter.
So it can be reasonable even if there is no basis for it? (Since if
there was a basis, it would be justified.)
The evidence does not
justify the verdict, but it was reasonable nonetheless?
Yep, it could be REASONable to the Juror/Jury who
made the determination, and yet it could be absolutely
WRONG.
It was REASONable for men to conclude, based on
the little evidence they had, that the Earth was Flat,
and/or that the Sun orbited around the Earth. They
did so, using REASON, for 1000s of years, Larry.
Turns out they were dead WRONG, especially
in light of new discoveries and science, but at
the time and based solely on the evidence they
had available, it was REASONable to make such
an erroneous conclusion, now wasn't it Larry, o'
King of Erroneous Conclusions?
Of course it was reasonable. Reasonable doesn't mean correct, but *as
you admit* it is based on THE EVIDENCE they had at the time. If THE
EVIDENCE leads you to a certain conclusion, it is a reasonable
conclusion.
Lots of convictions where someone later proven innocent - by DNA or
another source, for example - were nonetheless proven beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Yet you pontificated repeatedly, and laughably so, that the Jury can
"only consider the evidence presented at trial" and nothing more,
and nothing less. So which is it Larry, were you a stammering
ineloquent jackass then, or are you being a self-contradictory
imbecile now?
Here's your quote from this very post:
"The doubt must be based on the evidence or lack of evidence. If
it is based on anything else, even if it is reasonable, it is not
a legal
basis for a reasonable doubt."
So which is it Larry? Absolute forensic sterility of nothing but
the evidence presented
at trial, or can the Jurors bring their own human experience and
knowledge to bear on the verdict?
Which is it Larry?
It's a mix of the two.
So you were DEAD wrong when you repeated made
your earlier claims of Forensic Sterility, eh Larry?
I have never claimed "forensic sterility." I've had this discussion
with several morons like you over the years (just ask Jon) and I've
always said the same thing. Jurors use common sense and life
experiences to evaluate the evidence, not to prove or disprove certain
elements of the crime.
The jurors use their common sense and life experiences to evaluate the
evidence.
Yet, you claimed they could ONLY USE the evidence
presented in court, NOTHING MORE, nothing less.
Thanks for admitting you were, once again, a stammering
idiot in your proclamations.
You can only consider the evidence in court, but must consider it using
common sense.
If a witness testifies they saw something from 4 blocks away and around
a corner, a jury doesn't blindly have to accept it and believe whatever
the witness says he observed. A juror can say "wow, 4 blocks is far,
not to mention I know you can't see around curves!" and choose not to
believe the witness.
But if something that you might think is common sense is
actually an element of the crime, it must be proven by evidence.
Look, Jonez, all the rest of us are just trying to tell you what the
law is.
Naw Larry, no one stands with you, despite your desperate need
for outside support.
No one is against me, except you. Everyone else is telling you your
views of "reasonable" are, well, unreasonable.
You've failed to cite a single legal
definition for "beyond reasonable doubt" that contradicts
the irrefutable fact that if a Juror has REASON to Doubt,
they, ipso facto, have REASONable Doubt.
So stop your stammering and digression into what you think
is your expertise in Drug law, and stay on topic -- post your
legal citation to the objective, accepted legal definition of
"beyond a reasonable doubt" that contradicts what I've posted.
Go ahead Larry -- post it here:
From the New York pattern jury instructions - in pertinent part:
"A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for
which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence.
It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a
reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be
likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or
because of the lack of convincing evidence."
There you go. Pay attention to the middle part - a doubt that A
REASONABLE PERSON acting in a manner of this importance, would consider.
In other words, it is an *objective* standard, not a subjective one.
BUSTED! (not that I expect you to admit it)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solar" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 01:32:27 AM |
|
|
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is my least favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And landed in a puddle."
Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons. They sound ridiculous."
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them! They're reasons! Therefore, they must be REASONABLE!""
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
---------------
have a REASONABLE day !!!!!!!
Solar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 06:51:22 AM |
|
|
In article <1128061947.203063.325850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is my least
favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And landed in a
puddle."
Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons. They sound ridiculous."
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them! They're reasons! Therefore, they must
be REASONABLE!""
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
When someone makes a statement using a superlative such as always,
examples and hypotheticals are the clearest way of disproving the
statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 11:13:01 AM |
|
|
Larry wrote:
In article <1128061947.203063.325850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is my
least favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And
landed in a puddle."
Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons. They sound ridiculous."
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them! They're reasons! Therefore,
they must be REASONABLE!""
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
When someone makes a statement using a superlative such as always,
examples and hypotheticals are the clearest way of disproving the
statement.
All you've proven is how profoundly stupid you really are, and you
continue to exceed that proof nearly everytime you post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 06:42:55 PM |
|
|
In article <rsd%e.35$Q45.1756@news.uswest.net>,
" \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
Larry wrote:
In article <1128061947.203063.325850@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Solar" <williamtmaxwell@aol.com> wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is my
least favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And
landed in a puddle."
Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons. They sound ridiculous."
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them! They're reasons! Therefore,
they must be REASONABLE!""
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
When someone makes a statement using a superlative such as always,
examples and hypotheticals are the clearest way of disproving the
statement.
All you've proven is how profoundly stupid you really are, and you
continue to exceed that proof nearly everytime you post.
All I know is you haven't commented on the substance of the hypothetical
or the question presented by it. Your silence is deafening.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Larry's Imbecility Knows no Bounds -- The Abject Ignorance of Larry, World's Dumbest Prosecutor -- Reasonable Doubt Inquiry |
30 Sep 2005 11:12:01 AM |
|
|
Solar wrote:
Larry wrote
"I hate chocolate ice cream because it begins with C, and C is my
least favorite letter."
[...]
"Teacher: "Johnny, why don't you have your homework today?"
Johnny: "The dog ate it. Then it blew away in the wind. And
landed in a puddle." Teacher: "I don't believe those reasons. They
sound ridiculous."
They can sound any way the listner interprets them. They can
be ridiculous in the teacher's opinion.
Johnny: "You *HAVE* to believe them!
No, the teacher doesn't have to believe them, moron.
They're reasons! Therefore,
they must be REASONABLE!""
His explanation was reasonABLE. Why are you so
pig ignorant that you don't comprehend basic English
grammar, eh Larry? How could you be that stupid?
As stated before, REASONable does not always coincide
with "true, accurate, correct, etc", as you well know
when you make your pathetically false conclusions
for whatever dysfunctional mental reasons you harbor
in what you claim passes for your brain.
:
Hey, Glasser-- do you *ever* tire of manufacturing your lame
hypotheticals ???
Is there really any possibility that this Larry imbecile actually
made it into law school with his profoundly dysfuctional
comprehension of basic English, much less graduated?
---- | | | | | | | | | | | |
