INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Semicolon on April 15, 2014, 07:18:26 PM
-
Opinion: ‘Double Jeopardy’ Needs More Reform
The recent debacle over the barring of a Canadian film-crew from filming on the island has helped to shed light on the need for further legal reforms in Bermuda.
In particular, it’s time to take another look at the issue of ‘double jeopardy’ – where individuals cannot be tried for the same offence again after being acquitted.
To the former PLP Government’s credit, they amended the Court of Appeals Act in 2010 to allow for retrials in cases of murder or premeditated murder. And to the then Opposition OBA’s credit, they previously called for this amendment to go further, to be retrospective.
The PLP at the time voiced concern about such retroactivity being in contradiction to the Constitution, as well as voicing concerns about the process being open to abuse.
I think it’s time to revisit the issue of double jeopardy – especially in light of additional experience in the English judicial system in retrying old cases [reformed in 2003], with the Stephen Lawrence murder being a clear example.
We also now have the experience of the Scottish reforms, which came into force in 2011, which allowed for exceptions to the double jeopardy rule within Scottish law.
While the Court of Appeal Amendment Act 2010 allowed for retrials in the case of murder and premeditated murder, I believe we should also add rape, attempted rape and fraud [with our financial fraud laws needing serious overhauling too].
These are all crimes where novel evidence may come to light after the suspects have been acquitted.
This is particularly important in the case of sexual assault, where victims may feel confined to their homes or otherwise traumatised at the knowledge that their attacker is still out there – and in as small a community as Bermuda, this is potentially particularly debilitating for victims.
While it would not be advisable to completely discard the principle of double jeopardy – which is there to ensure that the State cannot harass citizens and take advantage of its superior resources, ad infinitum – I do think we should allow that, when novel evidence is presented, an appeal to the Court can be made to waive the double jeopardy rule in the case of such crimes noted above.
Certain criteria can be decided to determine at what point any new evidence warrants an exception to the double jeopardy rule. The nature of this new evidence may be a confession or new forensic evidence. This new evidence could be considered by appeal to the Court for consideration on whether to waive the double jeopardy rule – as we have already following the 2010 Amendment.
A caveat can be made to ensure that this exception can only be made once per case, thus reducing the threat of unlimited harassment of individuals.
There should be no statute of limitations on this – the policy should be made completely retrospective.
While there are valid concerns about making such exceptions retrospectively, it’s my view that public confidence in the justice system is weakened when compelling new evidence emerges and it is not possible to hold a new trial.
Cases that will be affected by the exception to the double jeopardy rule are likely to be rare, but they are extremely important in maintaining public confidence in the justice system and ensuring that justice is served. Despite the concerns about retrospectivity, I believe it is more important that a historical case be retried should compelling new evidence arise.
In a community as small as ours there is a fine balance to walk between securing justice for victims and protecting the rights of the accused. However, when new evidence comes to light that can allow us to realise justice then that is what we should do.
Source (http://bernews.com/2014/04/opinion-double-jeopardy-needs-more-reform/)
The article applies to Bermuda, but it illustrates the trend across Commonwealth countries of rolling back protections against double jeopardy. Thoughts?
-
Undecided. While new evidence might help solve old cases, why would round two be more reliable than round one? Consider the Amanda Knox case where the handling of the first trial was so messed up that a second should have been out of the question, regardless of any new evidence, let alone the lack of new evidence.
-
Like many things that might sound good in some cases but if the law is changed it will not be used in only those cases but at the discretion of the state and could easily be used to punish people though endless legal battles that they can not convict
-
Like many things that might sound good in some cases if the law is changed it will not be used in only those cases but at the discretion of the state and could easily be used to punish people though endless legal battles that they can not convict
I think it's disturbing, too.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
Slippery slope indeed, it will be used to extract plea deals from people unable to afford years of legal fees
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
-
Counterpoint:
You or your loved one is falsely accused of murder, spends years in jail awaiting trial (despite having been convicted of nothing), finally are granted a trial, found not guilty. The case was so botched that you have the right to sue the state for it. The state, to prevent you from doing this, has the ability to throw you back in jail again on "new evidence."
How would you feel?
The criminal justice system in the US is ungodly, hopelessly fucked, no matter how you look at it.
-
Yes, both are plausible, and both are fucked up.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.
Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.
Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?
This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.
-
What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.
Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?
This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.
Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.
-
What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.
Try switching the adjectives and your argument remains the same. I am not convinced.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.
Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?
This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.
Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.
The real question is which system you'd prefer as an innocent (or even guilty) defendant. In the criminal justice system, where the government has the most resources and power, the system should be leveling the playing field for the other side to ensure fair proceedings. While it may be an emotionally compelling argument to think about the victim, both America and England (and, I assume, Sweden and Finland) have long histories of abuse of power in criminal proceedings. These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.
-
What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.
Try switching the adjectives and your argument remains the same. I am not convinced.
The argument isn't the same. The state's right to prosecute has nothing to do with the fairness of those proceedings or their outcomes. Wasn't trying to convince of anything; only adding my viewpoint of the topic. How many times must a person be acquitted of a charge before the state must stop charging them for it? In the US that answer is one. Agree with that number and probably wont be convinced otherwise either.
-
These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.
Double jeopardy also protects those convicted as guilty from being tried again for the same charge as well. Maybe someone got a light sentence, plea-bargained for a lesser charge, got out early on good behavior. Should they should be charged and tried again to remedy that unfairness to the victims? Thinking not.
-
At the same time, I'm pretty sure we can find plenty of cases where a retrial is warranted.
Even if you could find any such cases (and I'm sure that you could find a few), the harm to society by allowing retrials greatly outweighs any benefit that might be gained from locking up these criminals.
I do not believe they would stop at just those few either
:agreed:
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.
Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?
This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.
Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.
The real question is which system you'd prefer as an innocent (or even guilty) defendant. In the criminal justice system, where the government has the most resources and power, the system should be leveling the playing field for the other side to ensure fair proceedings. While it may be an emotionally compelling argument to think about the victim, both America and England (and, I assume, Sweden and Finland) have long histories of abuse of power in criminal proceedings. These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.
Not just emotionally compelling, IMHO. It depends on who you define the system to be for. While you appear to limit the scope to the accused and the state, I think the victim should be part of it.
I was robbed once. Now, they did catch him and they did prove his guilt--the guy wasn't the most sophisticated of criminals, to be honest--but I was part of that case, and it was not just about emotions and such. It was about justice, which really is the whole point. I would have recognised that guy anywhere and if they had botched the evidence or the arrest, the system would have failed me.
I'm not advocating double jeopardy, though, not really. I don't like that idea more than the alternatives.
And yes; I could be wrong, in spite of being sure about his guilt.
-
What is accepted in a society as inherently right and inherently fair aren't always the same thing. It's not fair that some criminals get away with crimes, but it's right that the state isn't allowed to continue to prosecute people for charges which have been acquitted.
Try switching the adjectives and your argument remains the same. I am not convinced.
The argument isn't the same. The state's right to prosecute has nothing to do with the fairness of those proceedings or their outcomes. Wasn't trying to convince of anything; only adding my viewpoint of the topic. How many times must a person be acquitted of a charge before the state must stop charging them for it? In the US that answer is one. Agree with that number and probably wont be convinced otherwise either.
In an ideal society, I'd agree with you. In an ideal society, OTOH, there would be no need to agree. :P
-
These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.
Double jeopardy also protects those convicted as guilty from being tried again for the same charge as well. Maybe someone got a light sentence, plea-bargained for a lesser charge, got out early on good behavior. Should they should be charged and tried again to remedy that unfairness to the victims? Thinking not.
Well, remember OJ Simpson being chased on the telly in the 90s? If memory serves, he was acquitted but then sued.
-
Well, remember OJ Simpson being chased on the telly in the 90s? If memory serves, he was acquitted but then sued.
That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.
In an ideal society, I'd agree with you. In an ideal society, OTOH, there would be no need to agree. :P
Not going to start talking about anarchy now, are you? :laugh:
-
Well, remember OJ Simpson being chased on the telly in the 90s? If memory serves, he was acquitted but then sued.
That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.
I do, but it still highlights a design flaw in your system.
In an ideal society, I'd agree with you. In an ideal society, OTOH, there would be no need to agree. :P
Not going to start talking about anarchy now, are you? :laugh:
:zoinks: :viking:
-
That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.
I do, but it still highlights a design flaw in your system.
Perhaps I just don't see it.
-
The slippery slope is too slippery.
I agree, but at the same time, think about it. Someone kills your loved one but gets away with it because of missing evidence. Then, a couple of years later, new evidence is found that unequivocally proves his guilt.
How would you feel?
It doesn't matter how I would feel. In a criminal case, there are two parties: the state and the defendant. The victim (or relatives) only come into play to give statements during sentencing. The important part is safeguarding criminal processes so that they can't be abused by either party, especially the state.
If that's all that's important to you about a criminal process, then I understand why you think it doesn't matter how you feel.
Me, I think that how the citizens feel about their legal system should matter, and matter a great deal. If you don't trust the system, why should you play by its rules?
This is a different argument. How citizens objectively view the system they fund with their tax dollars is different from how a victim (or a victim's family) subjectively views the system that is working to convict someone of a life-altering crime.
Actually it's not a different argument. You simply define the scope differently.
The real question is which system you'd prefer as an innocent (or even guilty) defendant. In the criminal justice system, where the government has the most resources and power, the system should be leveling the playing field for the other side to ensure fair proceedings. While it may be an emotionally compelling argument to think about the victim, both America and England (and, I assume, Sweden and Finland) have long histories of abuse of power in criminal proceedings. These protections aren't arbitrary; they exist for a reason.
Not just emotionally compelling, IMHO. It depends on who you define the system to be for. While you appear to limit the scope to the accused and the state, I think the victim should be part of it.
I was robbed once. Now, they did catch him and they did prove his guilt--the guy wasn't the most sophisticated of criminals, to be honest--but I was part of that case, and it was not just about emotions and such. It was about justice, which really is the whole point. I would have recognised that guy anywhere and if they had botched the evidence or the arrest, the system would have failed me.
I'm not advocating double jeopardy, though, not really. I don't like that idea more than the alternatives.
And yes; I could be wrong, in spite of being sure about his guilt.
To me, the victim shouldn't be a party for the same reasons that you think the victim should be included: the victim is already part of the crime. Therefore, the victim can't be impartial in the case.
As for your case, I don't know of the defendant's guilt, other than what you've told me. However, I know of other cases (http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php) where eyewitness testimony convicted defendants who were later exonerated. I'm not sure what that has to do with this issue.
That's correct, though certainly you know the difference between criminal and civil court.
I do, but it still highlights a design flaw in your system.
Perhaps I just don't see it.
Perhaps it's that a defendant has to defend himself twice from the same charge. :dunno:
-
Messed up my quote, Semicolon, and had to fix it.
-
Messed up my quote, Semicolon, and had to fix it.
I fixed it before I posted. ;)
-
Perhaps it's that a defendant has to defend himself twice from the same charge. :dunno:
It wasn't the same charge. If he didn't have money no one would have bothered. Though true not generally how that charge is used. Some people may not think that outcome was fair, but that family did have the right to pursue him financially. They also had the right to pursue ownership of his book, and to rename it. It's a messed up case all around, though really don't think the judicial system should be overhauled for everyone because of it.
-
Perhaps it's that a defendant has to defend himself twice from the same charge. :dunno:
It wasn't the same charge. If he didn't have money no one would have bothered. Though true not generally how that charge is used. Some people may not think that outcome was fair, but that family did have the right to pursue him financially. They also had the right to pursue ownership of his book, and to rename it. It's a messed up case all around, though really don't think the judicial system should be overhauled for everyone because of it.
It was effectively the same charge. The only way to get money was to establish guilt.
-
It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.
-
It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.
:agreed:
The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.
-
It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.
:agreed:
The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.
Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.
-
It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.
:agreed:
The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.
Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.
I suppose so, if you consider it like that. There's a similar loophole in that the federal government and the state government can each independently try a crime against both sets of laws.
-
Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.
If it's irrelevant then don't bring it up. That's no fact. They could have still sued his estate anyway if he were found guilty without any restitution, and I seriously doubt they would have sat idly by and watched him profit by writing a book about it. It would have been a loophole if it resulted in him having a criminal record and he were sent to prison. Don't know if he did it or not, but if he did, a loophole would mean he's been tried twice for the same charge, acquitted of that charge and then punished for it. He hasn't been punished for murder. He's been handed a bill and that book will pay a lot of it. Am guessing that's why it was written. His case is simply a bad example in a discussion of double jeopardy. When the victim's families are allowed to present the same charge in civil court, then it will be an example.
There's a similar loophole in that the federal government and the state government can each independently try a crime against both sets of laws.
That's still highly debatable as a loophole because the charges are in fact different and federal cases are held in federal courts. Not sure how that could be circumvented. In a way it's still like someone who faces multiple charges during the same trial because they committed multiple crimes in the same act, and then their sentences are also multiple, but the structure of the court system prevents that combination when federal crimes are part of the mix.
-
Have kind of lost track of what this is about. Double jeopardy is like suggesting people acquitted of murder before DNA technology should be revisited with DNA technology. What is new evidence? The bill of rights are designed to protect citizens from the government. Giving that protection away won't change the fact there are sometimes unjust results in the courts.
-
It wasn't the same charge. Murder is a criminal charge punishable by imprisonment, and civil proceedings aren't prosecuted by the state. The burden of proof in civil court is based on probabilities, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because he had money, it's possible it could have been made a civil matter even if the results of the criminal trial had been different. It was an over sensationalized media hype fiasco which the police ruined on their own by blatantly planting evidence, and none of those people are reason enough to grant the state authority to repeatedly harass citizens with criminal charges.
:agreed:
The burden of proof is different for civil and criminal cases.
Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.
I suppose so, if you consider it like that. There's a similar loophole in that the federal government and the state government can each independently try a crime against both sets of laws.
It's an outrage! :arrr:
-
Yes, it is, but it's irrelevant. The fact is that the civil case only happened because he was acquitted in the criminal one. Effectively, it's a loophole in your system.
If it's irrelevant then don't bring it up.
I didn't. Semi did.
That's no fact. They could have still sued his estate anyway if he were found guilty without any restitution, and I seriously doubt they would have sat idly by and watched him profit by writing a book about it. It would have been a loophole if it resulted in him having a criminal record and he were sent to prison. Don't know if he did it or not, but if he did, a loophole would mean he's been tried twice for the same charge, acquitted of that charge and then punished for it. He hasn't been punished for murder. He's been handed a bill and that book will pay a lot of it. Am guessing that's why it was written. His case is simply a bad example in a discussion of double jeopardy. When the victim's families are allowed to present the same charge in civil court, then it will be an example.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.
-
Have kind of lost track of what this is about. Double jeopardy is like suggesting people acquitted of murder before DNA technology should be revisited with DNA technology. What is new evidence? The bill of rights are designed to protect citizens from the government. Giving that protection away won't change the fact there are sometimes unjust results in the courts.
But it might result in murderers being caught.
-
Actually you brought up establishing guilt, and I just made the point that they only needed establish a reasonable probability. Though agree it's irrelevant because a criminal charge and financial civil suit simply aren't the same thing. Don't mind agreeing to disagree because you can't give away my constitutional rights.
But it might result in murderers being caught.
Am sure those in authority would only do good things with such power.
-
Actually you brought up establishing guilt, and I just made the point that they only needed establish a reasonable probability. Though agree it's irrelevant because a criminal charge and financial civil suit simply aren't the same thing. Don't mind agreeing to disagree because you can't give away my constitutional rights.
But it might result in murderers being caught.
Am sure those in authority would only do good things with such power.
The funny thing is that your government already does things that your laws explicitly forbid. I guess you do need the protection.
If Lit was still around, he'd have listed the wrongdoings of the Swedish government by now.
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.
You have Wikileaks. :P
Sweden has a very small population, compared to America.
-
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Human rights violations committed by governments are global, and some much worse than the US. The US is rather visible because the world is obsess with looking at the US.
-
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Human rights violations committed by governments are global, and some much worse than the US. The US is rather visible because the world is obsess with looking at the US.
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there, b) is a self-proclaimed guardian of democracy, and c) claims to be one.
Now, the last bit is true, mostly, but there are some fairly visible cracks on the surface, cracks that are rather difficult to ignore.
I should probably add d) it is powerful enough to stay in focus, and e) it doesn't just claim to be a democracy, it claims to be THE democracy.
Yes, there are far worse governments out there, but most of them either don't claim otherwise or their claims are so hollow that nobody gives them a second thought. North Korea and Russia spring to mind.
Something like this whole NSA business requires resources out of the ordinary but still only makes the news because it is so diametrically opposite to what the government in question claims to stand for.
Sweden, for example, does have its very own NSA scandal (yay us!) but nobody cares because they just don't have the power or the resources, and even if they were saying that they were here to guard democratic principles and whatnot, nobody would listen.
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.
You have Wikileaks. :P
Sweden has a very small population, compared to America.
We don't have Wikileaks, no. But yes, the population is next to insignificant. Which, kind of, is my point.
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.
You have Wikileaks. :P
Sweden has a very small population, compared to America.
We don't have Wikileaks, no. But yes, the population is next to insignificant. Which, kind of, is my point.
Indeed not. I must have gotten confused by Julian Assange being wanted in Sweden.
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.
You have Wikileaks. :P
Sweden has a very small population, compared to America.
We don't have Wikileaks, no. But yes, the population is next to insignificant. Which, kind of, is my point.
Indeed not. I must have gotten confused by Julian Assange being wanted in Sweden.
Which is interesting mostly because of what Assange makes out if it.
-
The funny thing is, you have a way of saying that like the US is the only place where power corrupts. Thanks for the pity. If Lit were here,
I'd probably appreciate the distraction. :laugh:
That isn't my intention. I suppose it's at least partly because the US is, um, rather visible in this regard. *cough* the NSA *cough*
Sweden, for example, is rather boring in that respect. Sure, there's corruption, but there's just not enough power.
You have Wikileaks. :P
Sweden has a very small population, compared to America.
We don't have Wikileaks, no. But yes, the population is next to insignificant. Which, kind of, is my point.
Indeed not. I must have gotten confused by Julian Assange being wanted in Sweden.
Which is interesting mostly because of what Assange makes out if it.
He annoyed a lot of American politicians.
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
Thought addressing the first point also addressed the second one. Just because someone likes attention doesn't have much to do with if they get it. The news and people in Hollywood don't get my attention because I don't want to see it. Didn't really think the other points have anything to do with foreigners sitting around watching springer and cops, watching every scandal in our own news, eating our burgers and reading the latest on J-lo and beiber, and spending so much time talking about those things. It's because of an obsession, not anything to do with politics. Better now?
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
Thought addressing the first point also addressed the second one. Just because someone likes attention doesn't have much to do with if they get it. The news and people in Hollywood don't get my attention because I don't want to see it. Didn't really think the other points have anything to do with foreigners sitting around watching springer and cops, watching every scandal in our own news, eating our burgers and reading the latest on J-lo and beiber, and spending so much time talking about those things. It's because of an obsession, not anything to do with politics. Better now?
Justin Bieber is Canadian. Don't lump him in with us. :M :orly:
-
If he were operating in Canada, the rest of the world wouldn't care. :M
-
If he were operating in Canada, the rest of the world wouldn't care. :M
People care about Rob Ford.
-
Only the Canadians. :M
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
Thought addressing the first point also addressed the second one. Just because someone likes attention doesn't have much to do with if they get it. The news and people in Hollywood don't get my attention because I don't want to see it. Didn't really think the other points have anything to do with foreigners sitting around watching springer and cops, watching every scandal in our own news, eating our burgers and reading the latest on J-lo and beiber, and spending so much time talking about those things. It's because of an obsession, not anything to do with politics. Better now?
Point b actually really annoyed me. Can't imagine why anyone would think Americans actually want to be presented to the world in the most negative light possible. There's no denying the world happily consumes anything and everything negative barfed up by the American media, consuming every aspect of our culture. Can't help but to envision people watching our garbage, eating and drinking our garbage, chatting about what stupid pieces of shit we all are, and all the while convinced it's being somehow shoved down their throats by the American people, and not fed to them by their own media because that's what they want. It probably makes it easier for people to ignore the negative aspects of their own culture, because after all, what's happening in American tabloids is so much more important.
-
Just so you know, have long thought the exact same thing about Americans. The average American who consumes American trash media does it for the very same reason, because that's how they feel good about their own lives. It's pathetic and frankly insulting to to my own sense of being that would behave so insecurely.
-
Only the Canadians. :M
No, Americans, too. He was Wait Wait Don't Tell Me's favorite topic for like a month straight. I think in part it's just kinda nice to have political news that's ridiculous but not actually horrifying on a broad scale.
-
Only the Canadians. :M
No, Americans, too. He was Wait Wait Don't Tell Me's favorite topic for like a month straight. I think in part it's just kinda nice to have political news that's ridiculous but not actually horrifying on a broad scale.
It's scary if you live in Toronto, and you can't impeach your crack-smoking mayor.
-
:-\
Sometimes genuinely feel like an alien.
-
Only the Canadians. :M
No, Americans, too. He was Wait Wait Don't Tell Me's favorite topic for like a month straight. I think in part it's just kinda nice to have political news that's ridiculous but not actually horrifying on a broad scale.
It's scary if you live in Toronto, and you can't impeach your crack-smoking mayor.
At least in DC they make you step down before letting you come back as a councilman
-
:-\
Sometimes genuinely feel like an alien.
Because of the diversity, it's impossible to be weird if you live in America. :P
-
:-\
Sometimes genuinely feel like an alien.
Because of the diversity, it's impossible to be weird if you live in America. :P
Actually thought people were just proving my point, perhaps to make a point. :laugh:
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
Thought addressing the first point also addressed the second one. Just because someone likes attention doesn't have much to do with if they get it. The news and people in Hollywood don't get my attention because I don't want to see it. Didn't really think the other points have anything to do with foreigners sitting around watching springer and cops, watching every scandal in our own news, eating our burgers and reading the latest on J-lo and beiber, and spending so much time talking about those things. It's because of an obsession, not anything to do with politics. Better now?
Point b actually really annoyed me. Can't imagine why anyone would think Americans actually want to be presented to the world in the most negative light possible. There's no denying the world happily consumes anything and everything negative barfed up by the American media, consuming every aspect of our culture. Can't help but to envision people watching our garbage, eating and drinking our garbage, chatting about what stupid pieces of shit we all are, and all the while convinced it's being somehow shoved down their throats by the American people, and not fed to them by their own media because that's what they want. It probably makes it easier for people to ignore the negative aspects of their own culture, because after all, what's happening in American tabloids is so much more important.
Point b, as in the US being the self-appointed guardian of democracy? I suspect it's about justifying actions that are about something else entirely. It's a double-edged thing, partially fed by the rest of the world.
As for your culture being fed to the rest of the world, pretty much the entire western world prefers American TV to their own, which, for better or worse, colours their views. You, in practical terms, are what your TV shows make you to be. Not every aspect of your culture is included, only what your TV shows expose.
As for the celebrities, including the Canadians, it's a question of sheer volume. Until the petitions to deport Bieber made the news, quite a few people (in the rest of the world) didn't know he was a Canadian in the first place. America is synonymous with the US, for lots of people.
-
(http://[url=http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121121182947/gameshows/images/4/44/Double_Jeopardy%21_-9.png]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121121182947/gameshows/images/4/44/Double_Jeopardy%21_-9.png[/url])
:zoinks:
-
Point b, as in the US being the self-appointed guardian of democracy?
No, b as in wanting to be seen. You said the world is fixated on the US because b. they want to be seen.
As for your culture being fed to the rest of the world, pretty much the entire western world prefers American TV to their own, which, for better or worse, colours their views.
The world prefers most everything about our culture, movies, tv, fashion, pop culture, food, go-cart tracks everywhere, whatever. My cousin is married to a Turkish immigrant who works as a consultant to aiding people from her home country gain US citizenship. She told me they all talk about the US and americans like it's the ultimate worst shit place in the world, but they all want to come here and when they get here they never try to leave. Some of it strikes as sour grapes mentality, while the rest is typical behavior of people minimalizing their own problems by comparing it to something worse. Not saying it's not a natural thing to do; just can't understand it, like when people say their life is good, not by their own personal standards of good, but by comparison to the worst of the worst in other people's lives. Americans do it too, but it doesn't strike as quite as weird when americans comfort themselves with the negativity of the lives of other americans; at least it's looking at the negativity of our own culture. Maybe because am more used to it, or maybe it's harder to understand why anyone else would be interested at all. Either way, it all seems self-soothing.
As for the celebrities, including the Canadians, it's a question of sheer volume. Until the petitions to deport Bieber made the news, quite a few people (in the rest of the world) didn't know he was a Canadian in the first place. America is synonymous with the US, for lots of people.
Already said no one would give a crap about beiber if he were famous in canada, and that's true.
-
(http://[url=http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121121182947/gameshows/images/4/44/Double_Jeopardy%21_-9.png]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121121182947/gameshows/images/4/44/Double_Jeopardy%21_-9.png[/url])
:zoinks:
Can't see the picture.
-
No, b as in wanting to be seen. You said the world is fixated on the US because b. they want to be seen.
My mistake. Just went back and read your post again. that was point a, not b. Though on the point of democracy, still cant see what democracy has to do with a world fixation on any tidbit of US negativity. Sometimes have love/hate relationships with things and like to ask myself, do I love to hate it, hate to love it, or do I hate myself for loving it. :)
-
You need to work on your image. :trollface:
-
Then people wouldn't have a reason to like their own country. :-\
-
Then people wouldn't have a reason to like their own country. :-\
Why not? :-\
-
They might notice their own crap smells much the same.
-
That's not always the case, you know.
-
That's not always the case, you know.
Yes some places it smells much worse
-
Yes, sometimes it's just different crap, and for some reason that makes people feel better. If someone thinks they're awesome because they're ABC, think that's great and can admire their confidence; makes me want to agree they're awesome. If they think they're awesome because someone else is XYZ, think that's pathetic and insecure. People who evaluate themselves by focusing on the worst traits of others come across as very insecure. That's really all I've been trying to say.
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
Thought addressing the first point also addressed the second one. Just because someone likes attention doesn't have much to do with if they get it. The news and people in Hollywood don't get my attention because I don't want to see it. Didn't really think the other points have anything to do with foreigners sitting around watching springer and cops, watching every scandal in our own news, eating our burgers and reading the latest on J-lo and beiber, and spending so much time talking about those things. It's because of an obsession, not anything to do with politics. Better now?
Point b actually really annoyed me. Can't imagine why anyone would think Americans actually want to be presented to the world in the most negative light possible. There's no denying the world happily consumes anything and everything negative barfed up by the American media, consuming every aspect of our culture. Can't help but to envision people watching our garbage, eating and drinking our garbage, chatting about what stupid pieces of shit we all are, and all the while convinced it's being somehow shoved down their throats by the American people, and not fed to them by their own media because that's what they want. It probably makes it easier for people to ignore the negative aspects of their own culture, because after all, what's happening in American tabloids is so much more important.
Point b, as in the US being the self-appointed guardian of democracy? I suspect it's about justifying actions that are about something else entirely. It's a double-edged thing, partially fed by the rest of the world.
As for your culture being fed to the rest of the world, pretty much the entire western world prefers American TV to their own, which, for better or worse, colours their views. You, in practical terms, are what your TV shows make you to be. Not every aspect of your culture is included, only what your TV shows expose.
As for the celebrities, including the Canadians, it's a question of sheer volume. Until the petitions to deport Bieber made the news, quite a few people (in the rest of the world) didn't know he was a Canadian in the first place. America is synonymous with the US, for lots of people.
So you're saying that Europe has the same problem that America does, of being ignorant of the rest of the world? Some celebrities are immigrants who come to America for work, as do many non-celebrities.
-
So you're saying that Europe has the same problem that America does, of being ignorant of the rest of the world? Some celebrities are immigrants who come to America for work, as do many non-celebrities.
Now don't be evaluating an entire continent based on one person's lack of beiber knowledge. :laugh: Have been trying to discuss what I see to be a common socio-psychological phenomenon, found in humans in general, which I believe has manifested itself in a most peculiar and global way, and in no way isolated to Europe. In the past, it's seemed a more normal thing to do, because it was observed as isolated to individuals or even races or classes. It could simply be my own perspective of using the internet to even be aware of it that makes it seem so strange. If someone devalues me based on my own negative traits, that's something I can address as an individual. If they assign value to themselves by devaluing me or someone else, I think that's insecure. If they devalue me based on the negative traits of someone else, I wonder just what the crap they're even thinking. Have experienced bigotry but not at a global level until recent years and it spins the head.
-
Not so, IMHO. The US tends to be in focus because it a) likes to be there,
:laugh: The media feeds the people what they want to see. Have heard people question why the news is always negative; that's because people wouldn't otherwise watch the news. It's the same reason people read trashy tabloids. It brings to mind the bible with thorns and eyes. It's a business and foreign media bombards their public with American culture because that what sells.
I notice that you're not addressing my other points. :P
Thought addressing the first point also addressed the second one. Just because someone likes attention doesn't have much to do with if they get it. The news and people in Hollywood don't get my attention because I don't want to see it. Didn't really think the other points have anything to do with foreigners sitting around watching springer and cops, watching every scandal in our own news, eating our burgers and reading the latest on J-lo and beiber, and spending so much time talking about those things. It's because of an obsession, not anything to do with politics. Better now?
Point b actually really annoyed me. Can't imagine why anyone would think Americans actually want to be presented to the world in the most negative light possible. There's no denying the world happily consumes anything and everything negative barfed up by the American media, consuming every aspect of our culture. Can't help but to envision people watching our garbage, eating and drinking our garbage, chatting about what stupid pieces of shit we all are, and all the while convinced it's being somehow shoved down their throats by the American people, and not fed to them by their own media because that's what they want. It probably makes it easier for people to ignore the negative aspects of their own culture, because after all, what's happening in American tabloids is so much more important.
Point b, as in the US being the self-appointed guardian of democracy? I suspect it's about justifying actions that are about something else entirely. It's a double-edged thing, partially fed by the rest of the world.
As for your culture being fed to the rest of the world, pretty much the entire western world prefers American TV to their own, which, for better or worse, colours their views. You, in practical terms, are what your TV shows make you to be. Not every aspect of your culture is included, only what your TV shows expose.
As for the celebrities, including the Canadians, it's a question of sheer volume. Until the petitions to deport Bieber made the news, quite a few people (in the rest of the world) didn't know he was a Canadian in the first place. America is synonymous with the US, for lots of people.
So you're saying that Europe has the same problem that America does, of being ignorant of the rest of the world? Some celebrities are immigrants who come to America for work, as do many non-celebrities.
No, I'm not. Europe has its own problems. America's problems are uniquely America's, IMHO.
-
So you're saying that Europe has the same problem that America does, of being ignorant of the rest of the world? Some celebrities are immigrants who come to America for work, as do many non-celebrities.
Now don't be evaluating an entire continent based on one person's lack of beiber knowledge. :laugh: Have been trying to discuss what I see to be a common socio-psychological phenomenon, found in humans in general, which I believe has manifested itself in a most peculiar and global way, and in no way isolated to Europe. In the past, it's seemed a more normal thing to do, because it was observed as isolated to individuals or even races or classes. It could simply be my own perspective of using the internet to even be aware of it that makes it seem so strange. If someone devalues me based on my own negative traits, that's something I can address as an individual. If they assign value to themselves by devaluing me or someone else, I think that's insecure. If they devalue me based on the negative traits of someone else, I wonder just what the crap they're even thinking. Have experienced bigotry but not at a global level until recent years and it spins the head.
It's the downside of our information-centric society. Information flows far more freely now, and there's a lot more of it, but there's nothing that ensures its validity.
-
The weirdest thing is, the cultural adoration combined with the personal hatred makes the level of positive fixation equal to that of the negative emotional response; it's akin to dealing with homophobes who watch gay porn. :laugh:
-
That's a fairly odd comparison.
-
Thinking it's fitting. Love/hate obsessions can be an odd thing.