Australian Politics Forum - The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38701
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #195 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:32pm

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

If you think a 5 minute hearing before a magistrate is going to demand the same burden of proof a murder trial is then your on drugs. The legal principle may be the same but in practise it is not. Despite which the burden of proof can change, heres an example. It can hardly be tha same if it is shifted from the defendant rather than the prosecution now can it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-20/roxon-announces-discrimination-overhaul/4382168
Proof burden overturned in discrimination rethink
The Federal Government has announced an overhaul of anti-discrimination laws, including shifting the burden of proof to the defendant once a prima facie case has been established.

Ian, whether it be five minutes, five hours, five days.....five whatevers, in non civil trails, the standard of proof remains the same, 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Your reference to an 'overhaul' under proposal is completely irrelevant.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38701 Gender:	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #196 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:33pm flip one
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38701 Gender:	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #197 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:33pm flip two
Back to top	IP Logged

Kat Gold Member Offline Socialism IS the answer. Posts: 17709 Everywhere and no-where Gender:	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #198 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:35pm Luke Fowler wrote: Quote: Wow. I have to agree with Longy on this one. And, unusually, so do I...
Back to top	IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #199 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:37pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

If you think a 5 minute hearing before a magistrate is going to demand the same burden of proof a murder trial is then your on drugs. The legal principle may be the same but in practise it is not. Despite which the burden of proof can change, heres an example. It can hardly be tha same if it is shifted from the defendant rather than the prosecution now can it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-20/roxon-announces-discrimination-overhaul/4382168
Proof burden overturned in discrimination rethink
The Federal Government has announced an overhaul of anti-discrimination laws, including shifting the burden of proof to the defendant once a prima facie case has been established.

Ian, whether it be five minutes, five hours, five days.....five whatevers, in non civil trails, the standard of proof remains the same, 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Your reference to an 'overhaul' under proposal is completely irrelevant.

Nonsense. Yoiu know its bs. The legal system would grind to a halt. lawyers would have more work. Probably be able to charge 500 bucks for a phone call rather than 200. Tell me again how a charge of murder is the same as a charge of child abuse. You just got your panties twisted because I made you look like a fool.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38701
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #200 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:44pm

Quote:

Nonsense. Yoiu know its bs. The legal system would grind to a halt. lawyers would have more work. Probably be able to charge 500 bucks for a phone call rather than 200. Tell me again how a charge of murder is the same as a charge of child abuse. You just got your panties twisted because I made you look like a fool.

Bye bye Ian.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #201 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:31pm When the other person posts a gif or a vid Its the internet version of a crayon drawing. Tell us again how Lindy Chamberlain got charged with child abuse.
Back to top	IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #202 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:36pm Crap vid too.
Back to top	IP Logged

Luke Fowler

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 320
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #203 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:41pm

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Its not my way, its the way the law works. Jurors or judges should not convict if there is any doubt which they find reasonable. Long standing often misunderstood legal principle. Some people seem to think it means that there can be a doubt and still have a conviction. That is incorrect.

are you SOB??? you are unbelievably stupid in trying to understand what most people would understand rather easily. you apparently dont believe that there has ever been a wrongly convicted person.

Wow. I have to agree with Longy on this one. Ian, you have really no idea of the principle of reasonable doubt.

It is logically impossible to have no doubt about anything other than an a priori truth. If you had to have no doubt in order to convict, nobody could ever be convicted of anything other than claiming 2+2=5 or some such thing.

Oh, and another thing, arguing against the death penalty does not in anyway mean that you support or excuse what a violent killer or rapist has done. Resorting to this kind of attack just shows weakness in your own argument.

I was going to add more to the conversation but Mr Weekend's arguments are bang on here and I don't think I could improve on them.

Thats why its called reasonable doubt einstein, it works in the defendants favour. Another softcock

This seems to be at odds with your highlighted claim counsel.

Back to top

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad. Salvador Dali

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #204 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:02pm

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Its not my way, its the way the law works. Jurors or judges should not convict if there is any doubt which they find reasonable. Long standing often misunderstood legal principle. Some people seem to think it means that there can be a doubt and still have a conviction. That is incorrect.

are you SOB??? you are unbelievably stupid in trying to understand what most people would understand rather easily. you apparently dont believe that there has ever been a wrongly convicted person.

Wow. I have to agree with Longy on this one. Ian, you have really no idea of the principle of reasonable doubt.

It is logically impossible to have no doubt about anything other than an a priori truth. If you had to have no doubt in order to convict, nobody could ever be convicted of anything other than claiming 2+2=5 or some such thing.

Oh, and another thing, arguing against the death penalty does not in anyway mean that you support or excuse what a violent killer or rapist has done. Resorting to this kind of attack just shows weakness in your own argument.

I was going to add more to the conversation but Mr Weekend's arguments are bang on here and I don't think I could improve on them.

Thats why its called reasonable doubt einstein, it works in the defendants favour. Another softcock

This seems to be at odds with your highlighted claim counsel.

Being an expert in semantics doesnt give you a case, would you, as a juror vote him guilty if you had any doubt at all?

Back to top

IP Logged

Luke Fowler

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 320
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #205 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:12pm

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Its not my way, its the way the law works. Jurors or judges should not convict if there is any doubt which they find reasonable. Long standing often misunderstood legal principle. Some people seem to think it means that there can be a doubt and still have a conviction. That is incorrect.

are you SOB??? you are unbelievably stupid in trying to understand what most people would understand rather easily. you apparently dont believe that there has ever been a wrongly convicted person.

Wow. I have to agree with Longy on this one. Ian, you have really no idea of the principle of reasonable doubt.

It is logically impossible to have no doubt about anything other than an a priori truth. If you had to have no doubt in order to convict, nobody could ever be convicted of anything other than claiming 2+2=5 or some such thing.

Oh, and another thing, arguing against the death penalty does not in anyway mean that you support or excuse what a violent killer or rapist has done. Resorting to this kind of attack just shows weakness in your own argument.

I was going to add more to the conversation but Mr Weekend's arguments are bang on here and I don't think I could improve on them.

Thats why its called reasonable doubt einstein, it works in the defendants favour. Another softcock

This seems to be at odds with your highlighted claim counsel.

Would you, as a juror vote him guilty if you had any doubt at all?

It is impossible to have no doubt at all. The only thing you cannot doubt is an a priori truth.

I would not find a defendant guilty if I had reasonable doubt under the current system.

I would not find the defendant guilty at all if the death penalty was on the table because you can never be free of all doubt.

How can you send an individual to their death if there is any doubt whatsoever in their guilt?

Longweekend's twin brother example is highly unlikely but logically possible nonetheless, therefore there is doubt.

Until you can erase that, life without parole is the only alternative.

Back to top

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad. Salvador Dali

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #206 - Jul 9^th, 2013 at 7:04am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

But it is curious how the death penalty proponents give little too no regard to the problem of executing the innocent. It is as if they don't really care. Wrongful convictions just don't seem to be a part of their agenda.

Thought I covered that with some detail, recommending that those that commit multiple murders, violent rapes and child rapes

The chance of your personal evidence being at multiple crime scenes and victims and also innocent would be so unbelievably remote as to be impossible without direct police interference And if a copper deliberately falsified evidence, then a murder charge would ensue. It would be less so the state killing an innocent person but a cop murdering an innocent person.

So it isn't that difficult to ensure innocent people are not 'accidentally' knocked off their perch.

changing the criteria to multiple/serial offenders does reduce the risk but does not eliminate it. Innocents have been executed on numerous occasions.

It would not be unfair to observe that you have SOME concern about innocent executions but not enough to make you modify your view at all. And once the DP was enacted there is little chance it would remain only aimed at repeat offenders.

Life without parole has the same effect in terms of protection so why not promote that?

I doubt very much an 'innocent' who managed to leave evidence at multiple crime and on multiple victims and were executed would be innnocent. This scenario is so unlikely so as to be ludicrous in the extreme.

The problem with life without parole, there is always some soft c0ck, lawyer, parole board member, judge, just itching to free this person; we have it now in QLD, never to be released means until someone releases you.

Without trying to argue 'reasonable' doubt' to a legal certainty, which is for lawyers to crap on about; the likelihood of tapping an innocent man with today's technology (so the ryan argument is pointless here) is so unlikely so as to be absolute zero.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 9^th, 2013 at 11:07am by BigOl64 »

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #207 - Jul 9^th, 2013 at 7:07am

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:32pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

If you think a 5 minute hearing before a magistrate is going to demand the same burden of proof a murder trial is then your on drugs. The legal principle may be the same but in practise it is not. Despite which the burden of proof can change, heres an example. It can hardly be tha same if it is shifted from the defendant rather than the prosecution now can it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-20/roxon-announces-discrimination-overhaul/4382168
Proof burden overturned in discrimination rethink
The Federal Government has announced an overhaul of anti-discrimination laws, including shifting the burden of proof to the defendant once a prima facie case has been established.

Ian, whether it be five minutes, five hours, five days.....five whatevers, in non civil trails, the standard of proof remains the same, 'beyond reasonable doubt.'

Your reference to an 'overhaul' under proposal is completely irrelevant.

You do realise you are talking about two different things.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #208 - Jul 9^th, 2013 at 9:49am

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:12pm:

It is impossible to have no doubt at all. The only thing you cannot doubt is an a priori truth.

I would not find a defendant guilty if I had reasonable doubt under the current system.

I would not find the defendant guilty at all if the death penalty was on the table because you can never be free of all doubt.

How can you send an individual to their death if there is any doubt whatsoever in their guilt?

Longweekend's twin brother example is highly unlikely but logically possible nonetheless, therefore there is doubt.

Until you can erase that, life without parole is the only alternative.

Your comments seem to be at odds there, counsel. And I in many cases, there is no doubt at all of guilt. As with Jill Meaghers killer, unless you are arguing there is doubt about Bayleys guilt, is that what you are doing? If so, what is your doubt based on. I suspect it would not be reasonable.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #209 - Jul 9^th, 2013 at 10:46am

ian wrote on Jul 9^th, 2013 at 9:49am:

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 11:12pm:

It is impossible to have no doubt at all. The only thing you cannot doubt is an a priori truth.

I would not find a defendant guilty if I had reasonable doubt under the current system.

I would not find the defendant guilty at all if the death penalty was on the table because you can never be free of all doubt.

How can you send an individual to their death if there is any doubt whatsoever in their guilt?

Longweekend's twin brother example is highly unlikely but logically possible nonetheless, therefore there is doubt.

Until you can erase that, life without parole is the only alternative.

Your comments seem to be at odds there, counsel. And I in many cases, there is no doubt at all of guilt. As with Jill Meaghers killer, unless you are arguing there is doubt about Bayleys guilt, is that what you are doing? If so, what is your doubt based on. I suspect it would not be reasonable.

you have to be SOB's son. nobody could be as patently stupid as you without some genetic assistance. You seem to not understand some very, very basic principles of logic , never mind law. and perhaps worst of all, you cannot be taught or have anything explained to you.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged