Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
W
Warik
Guest
Why do we put innocent people on trial?
-Warik
-Warik
satanic goatslayer
New member
Everybody is guilty.
That is why I advocate the flogging and stoning of random people on Mondays.
That is why I advocate the flogging and stoning of random people on Mondays.
M
MoneyBags
Guest
so that we can put the black people in jail. free mandela!!!! stop oppressing the black man!!!
W
Warik
Guest
Latimer said:
Very well. I think you killed guy #6 that was murdered today. You will be placed on trial.
Fair enough?
-Warik
Innocent but have you noticed the 'Art' of accusations. Say you accuse someone of playing with a little kid. They get tossed into a fight for their freedom and wether they did or did not, they will be remembered a the kiddie fucker. There is weight to an accusation wether its true or not, damn shame huh? If you responded with one of your own, it would not hold the same weight. More evidence you shouldn't be doing bad shit. Next time you are in an ekevator, turn to the poor fucker next to you and say get your fucking hand off my ass and see what the others do. I bet they remember his/her face
It is better to presume they are innocent than presume they are guilty. We now have to prove that someone is guilty.
Also it beats being accused of a crime in early modern Europe. If you were accused of a crime, you were deemed the only person who knew what really happened. So they tortured you to get you to confess. If you survived several sessions of torture you were then deemed innocent of the crime. If you were too weak and confessed you were guilty of the crime.
Also it beats being accused of a crime in early modern Europe. If you were accused of a crime, you were deemed the only person who knew what really happened. So they tortured you to get you to confess. If you survived several sessions of torture you were then deemed innocent of the crime. If you were too weak and confessed you were guilty of the crime.
W
Warik
Guest
Latimer said:
Not fair for you or not fair for the truly guilty party?
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
Latimer said:
It's not fair for the truly innocent to be considered innocent until proven guilty?
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
Latimer said:
Wholeheartedly in agreement.
As such, I propose that henceforth, humanity only place those
who are guilty on trial.
-Warik
the nature boy
New member
Warik said:
why bother putting them on trial if they are already guilty? isn't one of the functions of a trial to prove guilt?
W
Warik
Guest
The Nature Boy said:
Precisely.
It is illogical to put innocent people on trial; therefore, we should only put guilty people on trial. As such, all suspects will be guilty until proven innocent.
-Warik
thebabydoc
New member
Would you rather that the innocent be "guilty until proven innocent?"Warik said:
Famous quote: "This system of justice sucks, but it's the best in the world"
W
Warik
Guest
thebabydoc said:
Do you deny that more guilty people are put on trial than innocent people?
-Warik
thebabydoc
New member
I would never deny that, in fact, it's probably 99.8% that are guilty.
Ever notice in jail it's the exact opposite?
Ever notice in jail it's the exact opposite?
W
Warik
Guest
thebabydoc said:
So, if there are more guilty people on trial than innocent people, would it not be logical to support the proposition to declare that all suspects are guilty until proven innocent? Or is it somehow logical to state the opposite?
-Warik
thebabydoc
New member
It's a classic ploy to make the system seem fair. "Saying" that everyone is innocent until proven guilty extends to the next step, that "everyone is equal in a court of law." All utter bullshit.Warik said:
Clearly everyone is guilty until proven innocent in court; the resources of the government are up against those of the accused. Does that sound like a fair fight?
Lao Tzu
New member
innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. if you are accused of a crime, in the eyes of society you are already guilty. guilty until proven innocent is a better label for the true nature of our judicial system.
p.s., 95% of trials are plea bargained. that shit you see in movies about both sides giving their side of the story, and trying to sway a jury only happens 1/20th of the time. the rest of the time the defense attorney makes a deal with the prosecuter. no trial for a lighter sentence. i'm sure about 1/10 of them are innocent, but 'shrug'. i sure as fuck wouldn't place my fate in the hands of americans. i've seen how much respect we have for the judicial system and its opinions.
why don't people use jury nullification?
p.s., 95% of trials are plea bargained. that shit you see in movies about both sides giving their side of the story, and trying to sway a jury only happens 1/20th of the time. the rest of the time the defense attorney makes a deal with the prosecuter. no trial for a lighter sentence. i'm sure about 1/10 of them are innocent, but 'shrug'. i sure as fuck wouldn't place my fate in the hands of americans. i've seen how much respect we have for the judicial system and its opinions.
why don't people use jury nullification?
Lao Tzu
New member
Warik said:
people say stuff they don't mean.
'i love you'
'you're innocent until proven guilty'
'you can count on me'
'of course i think you're fun to hang out with'
etc.
innocent until proven guilty just means that they can't punish you until they get through the red tape of the legal system. it doesn't mean people THINK you are innocent. it just means they can't punish you.
K
KAYNE
Guest
THAT IS THE MOST UNTRUE, FUCKED UP STATEMENT IN OUR WHOLE DAMN SOCIETY.
EVEN IF YOU ARE PROVEN INNOCENT, YOU ARE STILL GUILTY. TAKE THIS FOR EXAMPLE:
A WOMAN DECIDES SHE WANTS TO GET BACK AT OR RUIN A GUY FOR WHATEVER REASON. ALL SHE HAS TO DO IS SAY "RAPE" OR "SEXUAL ASSAULT" (OR EVEN "STALKER")!!! THE MALE IS THEN ARRESTED ON THE WOMAN'S WORD. HE THEN STANDS TRIAL BUT IN THE MEANTIME HE IS BRANDED A RAPIST OR SEX OFFENDER. THEN HE IS PROVEN INNOCENT AND THE REAL AGENDA OF THE WOMAN COMES OUT. HE IS STILL LOOKED UPON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE AS A SEX OFFENDER OR RAPIST.
SAME WITH MURDER OR ANYTHING ELSE. JUST LOOK AT RICHARD JEWEL. HE IS A HERO WHO SAVED LIVES IN OLYMPIC PARK IN ATLANTA '96. HE WAS ACCUSED CUZ THE FBI ARE FUCKUPS AND NEEDED A SCAPEGOAT. WHEN IT WAS REALIZED THAT THEY HAD ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM THEY DROPPED THE CASE. HE THEN SUED AND WON MILLIONS.
MORE LIKE "GUILTY, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. BUT EVEN THEN, YOU ARE STILL GUILTY"!!!
KAYNE
EVEN IF YOU ARE PROVEN INNOCENT, YOU ARE STILL GUILTY. TAKE THIS FOR EXAMPLE:
A WOMAN DECIDES SHE WANTS TO GET BACK AT OR RUIN A GUY FOR WHATEVER REASON. ALL SHE HAS TO DO IS SAY "RAPE" OR "SEXUAL ASSAULT" (OR EVEN "STALKER")!!! THE MALE IS THEN ARRESTED ON THE WOMAN'S WORD. HE THEN STANDS TRIAL BUT IN THE MEANTIME HE IS BRANDED A RAPIST OR SEX OFFENDER. THEN HE IS PROVEN INNOCENT AND THE REAL AGENDA OF THE WOMAN COMES OUT. HE IS STILL LOOKED UPON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE AS A SEX OFFENDER OR RAPIST.
SAME WITH MURDER OR ANYTHING ELSE. JUST LOOK AT RICHARD JEWEL. HE IS A HERO WHO SAVED LIVES IN OLYMPIC PARK IN ATLANTA '96. HE WAS ACCUSED CUZ THE FBI ARE FUCKUPS AND NEEDED A SCAPEGOAT. WHEN IT WAS REALIZED THAT THEY HAD ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING EVIDENCE TO CONVICT HIM THEY DROPPED THE CASE. HE THEN SUED AND WON MILLIONS.
MORE LIKE "GUILTY, UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. BUT EVEN THEN, YOU ARE STILL GUILTY"!!!
KAYNE
Last edited:
Bigsatan13
New member
You are guilty until proven innocent. BTW, you also have to pay thousands of dollars to defend yourself. You lose valuable time away from your family and friends while defending yourself. If you are detained while awaiting trial, you lose your job and the salary that comes with it. Depending on the charges nobody looks at you the same. I think that if the prosecuters were held more accountable for their trumped up charges alot less people would have to defend themselves against bullshit charges!
Warik said:
C'mon WARIK....you can only be brought to court and tried if there is sufficient evidence that you broke a law. Someone believes they have enough evidence that you broke the law, so they bring you in front of Judge and/or jury to decide if you really did it or not. Without sufficient eveidence, casees should be tossed from court or rejected by a judge before you even go. I agree it sucks for a truly innocent man to sit through suck flooging, but it has to be done. If you were truly innocent you could then counter sue for false accusations, defamation, libel, malice, etc..right?? Not sure though?
R
ryker77
Guest
It all boils down to how much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
you can afford to spend on legal fees. Just look at OJ Simpson. He got in his car and drove with the police chasing him. If a normal non-rich person did such an event they would loose thier driving rights. Now OJ is on trial for road rage???
Think that the regular court system is screwed up. Try going to divorce court. You'll be sick at your stomach. The judge was like "you make enough money so pay half of her legal fees". And she got a high dollay lawyer so her fees were double what I paid. And she's divorcing me for no real reason. The poor guy that went before me had two cars so the judge said to the wife " he has tow cars which one do you want?" Makes me sick.
you can afford to spend on legal fees. Just look at OJ Simpson. He got in his car and drove with the police chasing him. If a normal non-rich person did such an event they would loose thier driving rights. Now OJ is on trial for road rage???
Think that the regular court system is screwed up. Try going to divorce court. You'll be sick at your stomach. The judge was like "you make enough money so pay half of her legal fees". And she got a high dollay lawyer so her fees were double what I paid. And she's divorcing me for no real reason. The poor guy that went before me had two cars so the judge said to the wife " he has tow cars which one do you want?" Makes me sick.
R
ryker77
Guest
Running from the law is a felony offense. It can cost you your license for at least 6 months.
Which is better than nothing. My point is if it was you or me we would have been charged cause they know we would just plead guilty and not clog up the system. It all on a profit ratio. If you arrest poor people they plead guilty and pay thier fines. If you arrest rich people they get a high dollar lawyer and it cost the system money to convict them.
Which is better than nothing. My point is if it was you or me we would have been charged cause they know we would just plead guilty and not clog up the system. It all on a profit ratio. If you arrest poor people they plead guilty and pay thier fines. If you arrest rich people they get a high dollar lawyer and it cost the system money to convict them.
K
KAYNE
Guest
MAN DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON TALKING ABOUT DIVORCE AND HOW BITCHES GET TO SUCK THE GUY DRY EVEN THOUGH THEY FUCK UP MOST OF THE TIME..........SHIT I'M GETTING PISSED ALREADY. I HAVE TO LEAVE THIS THREAD.
KAYNE
KAYNE
Bigsatan13 said:
You are guilty until proven innocent. BTW, you also have to pay thousands of dollars to defend yourself. You lose valuable time away from your family and friends while defending yourself. If you are detained while awaiting trial, you lose your job and the salary that comes with it. Depending on the charges nobody looks at you the same. I think that if the prosecuters were held more accountable for their trumped up charges alot less people would have to defend themselves against bullshit charges!
What an absolute load of shit!!! Every advantage is afforded the criminal scum sucking pieces of crap. There must be probable cause to arrest. In most States and the Federal courts, a Grand Jury must determine if the case should be indicted. The defendant has the right to a court appointed attorney for free, he has the right to keep his clap trap closed. If he is stupid enough to open his hole he has the right to shut up when he relizes he has said too much. He must be warned of these rights even though the ten time loser knows his rights better than most cops. The Government must prove the turd guilty Beyond a reasonable doubt. "I think he did it" or " he probably did it" ain't enough. Even if every swinging dick in the court house thinks the defendant probably committed the crime, he must be acquited.
As a prosecutor for the last 15 years, I stand behind every indictment and sentence including those on death row.
hasta
litig8r
W
Warik
Guest
nitlyan said:
i.e. You can only be brought to court and tried if you're guilty.
I am not guilty of murder... so if you tried to find evidence of me being guilty of murder, you would fail. However, if I WERE guilty of murder, you may not have that difficult of a time.
Interesting...
-Warik
BigRugbyMan
New member
you guys have no concept of the legal system... Myself being a law student, I do. People are deemed innocnet until proven guilty for a reason. In court, there must be sufficient evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. Thus you are innocent, once significant evidence is brought to light, then that evidence is considered by the deciding body...
Think about it... If you were wrongly accused... Would you rather be deemed guilty and have to provide sufficient evidence that you are innocent??? or... Would you rather be deemed innocent and the prosecuting body hace to provide significant evidence that you are guilty??? I'll take choice #2 anyday
Think about it... If you were wrongly accused... Would you rather be deemed guilty and have to provide sufficient evidence that you are innocent??? or... Would you rather be deemed innocent and the prosecuting body hace to provide significant evidence that you are guilty??? I'll take choice #2 anyday
Bigsatan13
New member
litig8r said:
Wow I'm impressed the way claim that everyone you go up against is a criminal and stupid and for lack of a better word a turd. I know that that's how you government puppets think. I'm sure with this train of thought you have managed to fuck up alot of good peoples lives out there. But that doesn't matter to you. When you get sick of making the shitty paycheck you receive and learn how to try cases you will change sides and defend the turds of the world. It must be nice to weild such power over the scumbags you surround yourself with whome become state's evidence. They never are told exactly what to say so things go your way right? You never let the truly guilty off so you can get your desired target do you?
I have news for you, you are a parasite who contributes nothing to society. Go fuck yourself! You brainwashed piece of shit! You have just proven my theory about how impartial prosecutors are.
How many of your sentences have been overturned? How many times have rats been your only proof of probable cause?
Last edited:
Bigsatan13
New member
BigRugbyMan said:
No, once you are accused you have to prove your innocence! You have to post bail, hire an attorney and build a defense to prove your innocence. Don't try to pretty it up! That's the way it is! Why you might even be held without bail. Imagine trying to defend yourself from lock-up or better yet imagine trying to do your job as an attorney from lock-up. Does the defendent get compensated for his time served or his lawyer fees? How many people are being let out of prison because new evidence clears them?
Last edited:
W
Warik
Guest
BigRugbyMan said:
Yes. In order for the case to go to trial, there has to be sufficient evidence in the first place to indicate that a crime was committed and that I might be the guilty party. Since I would not be the guilty party, sufficient evidence would not exist to take me to trial; therefore, I would not be on trial for a crime I did not commit.
However, if suspects are deemed guilty until proven innocent, then a greater percentage of the scum-sucking, sub-human, hell-spawn bastards who go to trial for heinous acts will have a more difficult time going free.
-Warik
Lao Tzu
New member
Warik said:
90-95% of all cases are plea bargained. a guilty plea is exchanged for leniency.
so you are wroooooooong.
besides, i'm sure that about 10% of those who enter pleas are innocent but think that being found guilty of a misdemeanor & getting a suspended sentence is better than being tried for a felony, going to jail, and losing their rights.
sooo nice of you to show your far right opinions on a board dedicated to the manufacture, distribution & possession of controlled substances btw.
<jk>
W
Warik
Guest
WODIN said:
Hey now, I don't insult you for thinking that guilty people should be considered innocent... so don't insult me for thinking the opposite. =)
So typical of you humans.
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
nordstrom said:sooo nice of you to show your far right opinions on a board dedicated to the manufacture, distribution & possession of controlled substances btw.
I know you're j/k, but I'll respond anyway.
1) What does the nature of the board have to do with my
ability/right to express my opinions on it?
2) Go ahead and use the classic "well if you were accused of
steroid use, you'd be guilty until proven innocent too," because
I'm natural and thus that does not apply to me. =)
3) "Far right?"
right
adjective
acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact
being in a correct or proper state
Thx for the compliment.
=)
-Warik
Lao Tzu
New member
1. it doesn't. it just upholds my belief about republicans, that they don't think the law applies to them. i know it sounds mean, but its true based on what i've seen. they think that laws & restrictions & tough love only apply to 'everyone else'.
ive seen alot of people who i would label far right on this board complain about the criminal element, then turn around &
1. endorse steroid use
2. endorse severe violence as a first resort solution to their problems
i mean, in america you can't get a gun if you have a history of drug/alcohol use, or a felony conviction. but i see people on this board who i would label far right do that every week. use drugs & commit (or at least brag about committing) felonies. usually violent felonies.
2. do what you want. be natural, take drugs, whatever makes you happy. my main concern was with your far right stance, and how (from what i've seen on this board) liberals are oversensetive & irrational, but conservatives are selfish & don't think the law applies to them.
3. hahaha
you're welcome.
ive seen alot of people who i would label far right on this board complain about the criminal element, then turn around &
1. endorse steroid use
2. endorse severe violence as a first resort solution to their problems
i mean, in america you can't get a gun if you have a history of drug/alcohol use, or a felony conviction. but i see people on this board who i would label far right do that every week. use drugs & commit (or at least brag about committing) felonies. usually violent felonies.
2. do what you want. be natural, take drugs, whatever makes you happy. my main concern was with your far right stance, and how (from what i've seen on this board) liberals are oversensetive & irrational, but conservatives are selfish & don't think the law applies to them.
3. hahaha
you're welcome.
Warik said:
W
Warik
Guest
nordstrom said:
But I don't... so your comment deflects harmlessly off of my
impermeable shield of integrity. ph3@r me.
nordstrom said:
But, then again, not me. I've never used any illegal drugs or
committed any felonies. I flex in mockery of your legal attacks. =)
Another thing: any "illegal" acts I may have endorsed or may
endorse in the future are "illegal" acts which I feel are victimless
and should not be illegal, i.e. gambling. I would never, however,
perform or support performance of any illegal act that I feel
should not be legal to everyone able to perform it without
infringing upon the rights of others.
nordstrom said:
Please cite an example in which I've stated or suggested
(seriously, not a blatant joke such as "heh heh perhaps you
should impale him with a hot poker and then wash his feet with
acid") that I did not think the law applied to me; otherwise, do
not classify me as "far right" unless it is intended as a
compliment. =)
nordstrom said:
I'm glad to see that I amused you. =)
-Warik
Lao Tzu
New member
Warik said:
i can't. it would take hours to search all your posts, and i may not come up with anything. i just assumed because you were on a board devoted to steroids that you had used them or were planning to use them.
my main flux was the conservatives on the board who commit/endorse violence & drug use, then turn around and talk about gun rights and what should happen to criminals, oblivious to the fact that drug use &/or violence results in loss of gun rights & makes someone a criminal too. i assumed (wrongly i guess) that you were one of them.
damn. i see you know how to argue too.
what would you like to be called? conservative? i call you far right because you are right wing.
Puc
Banned
Warik said:
Great... you can argue semantics, which is all this whole fucking thread is anyway -- semantics.
you are arguing the definitions of guilt and innocence.
We do not put the GUILTY OR THE INNOCENT ON TRIAL, WE PUT THE ACCUSED ON TRIAL. WE ASSUME THE ACCUSED TO BE INNOCENT UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE. It is not a difficult concept.
Bigsatan13 said:
Wow I'm impressed the way claim that everyone you go up against is a criminal and stupid and for lack of a better word a turd. I know that that's how you government puppets think. I'm sure with this train of thought you have managed to fuck up a lot of good peoples lives out there. But that doesn't matter to you. When you get sick of making the shitty paycheck you receive and learn how to try cases you will change sides and defend the turds of the world. It must be nice to weild such power over the scumbags you surround yourself with whome become state's evidence. They never are told exactly what to say so things go your way right? You never let the truly guilty off so you can get your desired target do you?
I have news for you, you are a parasite who contributes nothing to society. Go fuck yourself! You brainwashed piece of shit! You have just proven my theory about how impartial prosecutors are.
How many of your sentences have been overturned? How many times have rats been your only proof of probable cause?
If you consider people who screw their 4 year old daughters "good people" or perhaps the man who beat a 65 year old recovering cancer patient to death with a claw hammer for some crack money is one of your "good people". These are the type of turds that I refer too. What about the convicted murderer, out on parole, who got drunk, ran into a car load of kids and killed two siblings. I fucked his life up too. You ignorant bleeding heart. think about those who suffer at the hands of this scum.
The law protects the accused and virtually ignores the victims.
I surround myself with others who are dedicated to standing up for the victims who cannot defend themselves. We put away the parasites who prey on the weak, lonely and helpless.
I do not do this for money (although I make well over six figures). Some people in this world act out of a sense of responsibility and a desire to give back to their community. We are not driven simply by the almighty dollar. I suspect this is a motive foreign to you however.
As for my conviction and reversal rate. I have had one case reversed in the last 15 years. I have prosecuted thousands of cases and tried over 225 jury trials. I have argued appeals at every level of appellate court in Texas, the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans five times and the United States Supreme Court on one occasion.
Most of the attorney's I go up against are good. It is their scumsucking excuses for human being clients that I despise. The vast majority are ignorant animals. That is why they commit crimes, use drugs and abuse others.
It is clear that, if you have any real knowledge of the criminal justice system, it is from the perspective of a defendant. I am not suppose to be impartial. I am an advocate not a fucking judge. I represent the people and do so zealously. That is why I stay in office. You need to grow up.
hasta
litig8r
Bigsatan13
New member
litig8r said:
So out of 225 convictions you put away 1 child molester, a crack fueled murderer and a drunk driver who commited vehicular homicide. Wow, I'm impressed. I could care less about those easy convictions, tell us about the people you coerced into plea bargains and the bullshit cases you prosecuted. Tell us how you use scare tatics and lies to get people to cooperate with you. You don't make 6 figures. If you do its probably borderline. I've had to defend myself against false charges before but again you look at it as if I was a criminal. I was found not guilty but you put me in the same group as your 3 cake walk cases. Your closing statement was I need to grow up? Have you ever broke a law in your life or was it that you didn't get caught? You are a walking contradiction and a hypocrite. Tell people the truth about how the system really works. The original point of this thread was that in all reality you are guilty untill proven innocent. You felt compelled to defend yourself because you felt guilty. It's O.K. to admit you're wrong. In closing, I would like to say that I'm the farthest thing from a bleeding heart. If I thought justice had to be served in a personal matter I would not seek it through you!
W
Warik
Guest
nordstrom said:
I'll save you the time and trouble... you won't come up with
anything. =)
nordstrom said:
Hehe.. like it? =)
nordstrom said:
I suppose you can call me Conservative/Republican since more of
my views are also views of the Republican party than any other
party (and also because I'm a member of the Elite Conservative
Heterosexual White American Male Club), but I'd much rather be
thought of as a single-minded (also known as, by those with
little or no capacity for intellectual thought, "closed-minded")
individual with his own views and opinions, none of which he cannot logically to the death.
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
Puc said:
1) My "far right" comment was a joke. Notice nordstrom's response: "hahaha" I did not expect you to understand it, which is why it was directed to nordstrom and only nordstrom. Oh well.
2) If we put the accused on trial, why do we call them innocent until proven otherwise? Is it not more logical to consider them "accused until proven otherwise?"
3) We don't put the "accused" on trial. Ok... you killed guy A. I just accused you. Are you on trial? No. You go to trial when enough evidence has been collected to place you on trial. Wow... where did so much evidence pointing to an innocent man come from?
-Warik
W
Warik
Guest
litig8r said:
It is because of people like you that I can still leave my house
and expect to return home alive. Prosecuting attorneys... yet another valuable, yet unfortunately underpaid, profession.
Thank you and keep up the good work.
-Warik
Lao Tzu
New member
Bigsatan13
New member
nordstrom said:
Good sight, however I'm shocked that 50% of the overturned cases were because of police and prosecutor misconduct. What are they trying to say? I wish I was mature enough to understand the reality of the system. I was told by a real live prosecutor that I should grow up. Thanks for proving my point
Nordstrom!
300 wrongful convictions? Out of how many convictions nationwide? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS!!! over how long a period of time? The site doesn't say.
"The website identifies and examines several types of criminal justice system errors that cause wrongful convictions and reports their frequency (some cases have more than one error):
Erroneous Eyewitness Identification: 58%
False Informant: 31%
Official Misconduct: 17%
False Confession: 17% "
ONLY 17% of the 300 were OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.
this includes, according to the site, misconduct by the Court, ineffective assistance of the defense counsel, police misconduct, expert witness misconduct, and ONE EXAMPLE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. What is the sources relied on to prove these numbers?
Sources of Information
The sources of information for the cases in this database are not always ideal. Often information is left out. However, trial transcripts are difficult to obtain, and difficult to review. I make the best of what's available.
Many of the cases in this database come from newspaper articles published in the United States or Canada. Each specific article is referenced in the database. Other sources of information are from the books that are listed below.
NEWSPAPERS!!!! Well that's it. I give up. If the Newspaper printed it, It must be so!
Yes, a very miniscule number of "innocent" people get convicted. That is why we have appellate review after appellate review. That is why we have Writs of Habeas Corpus. That is why we spend, literally, millions of dollars and years in the appellate courts to make sure that an innocent man is not convicted and if it does happen that it is corrected. And most often, when a case is reversed, it is not because of innocence, it is because a lawyer or judge pulled some stupid as technical mistake during the trial. The system is not perfect. However, prosecutors do not run around railroading innocent people for grins. There are more than enough guilty pieces of shit to keep us busy without looking to convict innocent individuals. Yes there are bad prosecutors just like there are bad cops, judges, preachers, teachers, and even some stupid fucking bodybuilders. That does not mean they are all that way or that even a significant number are bad.
It is this idea that it someone else's fault for these miscreants being prosecuted that has caused a decay in society. No one wants to accept responsibility for their actions. It is not the prosecutors, the judges, the defense attorneys, nor the police that are at fault. It is the criminal acts of those accused that get them where they are.
hasta
litig8r
"The website identifies and examines several types of criminal justice system errors that cause wrongful convictions and reports their frequency (some cases have more than one error):
Erroneous Eyewitness Identification: 58%
False Informant: 31%
Official Misconduct: 17%
False Confession: 17% "
ONLY 17% of the 300 were OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.
this includes, according to the site, misconduct by the Court, ineffective assistance of the defense counsel, police misconduct, expert witness misconduct, and ONE EXAMPLE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. What is the sources relied on to prove these numbers?
Sources of Information
The sources of information for the cases in this database are not always ideal. Often information is left out. However, trial transcripts are difficult to obtain, and difficult to review. I make the best of what's available.
Many of the cases in this database come from newspaper articles published in the United States or Canada. Each specific article is referenced in the database. Other sources of information are from the books that are listed below.
NEWSPAPERS!!!! Well that's it. I give up. If the Newspaper printed it, It must be so!
Yes, a very miniscule number of "innocent" people get convicted. That is why we have appellate review after appellate review. That is why we have Writs of Habeas Corpus. That is why we spend, literally, millions of dollars and years in the appellate courts to make sure that an innocent man is not convicted and if it does happen that it is corrected. And most often, when a case is reversed, it is not because of innocence, it is because a lawyer or judge pulled some stupid as technical mistake during the trial. The system is not perfect. However, prosecutors do not run around railroading innocent people for grins. There are more than enough guilty pieces of shit to keep us busy without looking to convict innocent individuals. Yes there are bad prosecutors just like there are bad cops, judges, preachers, teachers, and even some stupid fucking bodybuilders. That does not mean they are all that way or that even a significant number are bad.
It is this idea that it someone else's fault for these miscreants being prosecuted that has caused a decay in society. No one wants to accept responsibility for their actions. It is not the prosecutors, the judges, the defense attorneys, nor the police that are at fault. It is the criminal acts of those accused that get them where they are.
hasta
litig8r
Bigsatan13
New member
Listen, you prove my point once again. You are not admitting any fault whatsoever. It wasn't they were innocent that they were let out of prison, it was an error of the system. Get over it, innocent people get put on trial! They have to defend their innocence! You are too quick to pass judgement that everyone that walks into your courtroom that isn't sitting at your table must be guilty of something or they wouldn't be there in the first place. You are brainwashed and basically profiling defendents. When you are speeding to work tomorrow because you are running late from staying up too late on this website defending the honor of prosecutors far and wide across the nation, remember to issue yourself the proper citation and pay the fine. Why do you hate the defendents so much? Without defendents you would not have a job! After you use this position to launch your political career you should be thankful for all the defendents who got you there. Maybe once you get to your real elected position you can indulge in some of the kickback\political contribution programs and get that 50 foot sailboat you want. But that doesn't happen either. Come on admit it you are a lawyer and you love a good arguement!
BTW, you didn't have to insult any of the members of this board by using the term stupid bodybuilder.
BTW, I have found one portion of you defence that I agree with. You should be willing to accept responsibility for your actions. I always will. But I will not accept responsibility for something I didn't do and will defend myself till the end!
Warik said:
LMAO!!!
Your argument totally leaves out the logical extension of the use of Innocent Until Proven Guilty.... Burden of Proof. Many defendents cannot afford to put forth the type of defense needed under your system. And many who are innocent but termed guilty would be locked away only because they have been falsley accused. It is the accussors requirement, burden to provide proof of guilt. In our system it is the state or "people" who must provide the proof and carry the burden to do so.
Puc
Banned
damnit.Warik said:
2)
because we are gay. and who the flaming fuck cares, anyway? I think it is pathetic that you use a semantic argument to defend my accusation that your post is nothing more than semantics.
3)
Warik, you logic is faulty. I never said ALL OF THE ACCUSED GO ON TRIAL. I said WE PUT THE ACCUSED ON TRIAL. Being accused does not invariable lead to a trial.
I accuse you of fucking your mother. No evidence supports this claim. Therefore, you do not stand trial.
And, as for your question about why evidence would purport guilt when none exists, I think you ask richard jewel...
Last edited:
K
KAYNE
Guest
Puc said:
A MUTHA FUCKING MEN!!! I PUT SOME SHIT ABOUT HIM ALSO.
KAYNE
K
KAYNE
Guest
WARIK SEEMS TO BE SLACKING. HE "FORGOT TO REPLY" TO THE LOVE THREAD ALSO. IT SEEMS HE DOESNT WANT TO REPLY TO THIS ONE EITHER.
IT SUX CUZ I LIKE READING HIS REBUTTLES. THEY'RE GREAT 99% OF THE TIME. BUT IN THIS CASE AND THE LOVE THREAD CASE ALSO, I THINK HE HAD TO BOW DOWN. HEHE.
KAYNE
IT SUX CUZ I LIKE READING HIS REBUTTLES. THEY'RE GREAT 99% OF THE TIME. BUT IN THIS CASE AND THE LOVE THREAD CASE ALSO, I THINK HE HAD TO BOW DOWN. HEHE.
KAYNE
Similar threads
