Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:48 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Big Graeme wrote:Then no one would be convicted unless the jury saw the crime themselves.
Not really. If the evidence leaves them in no reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the defendant, they are 100% sure. Unless you consider them thinking "well, this alternative scenario could have happened, but it's unreasonable to think that it did" counts as them being less than 100% sure.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:12 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Big Graeme wrote:FFS, no they are not. The concept isn't that hard to understand.
You wouldn't think so. It's pretty much a semantic argument anyway, and I'm not going to sit and argue semantics with someone who's never been known to give an inch in any discussion. It's certainly not 'a long way short' of 100% as you suggest. If a juror has no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they're 100% sure, or as near as damn it.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:01 pm
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Mintball wrote:Evidence from the US, in states where capital punishment was re-introduced, suggest that the murder rate increased after the reintroduction.
My main reason for supporting capital punishment is to differentiate between crimes not that it might reduce crimes of this nature. I don't see what value society is getting in keeping Peter Sutcliffe in prison until he dies?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:04 pm
Stand-Offish
Club Coach
Joined: Feb 18 2006 Posts: 18610 Location: Somewhere in Bonny Donny (Twinned with Krakatoa in 1883).
Rock God X wrote:You wouldn't think so. It's pretty much a semantic argument anyway, and I'm not going to sit and argue semantics with someone who's never been known to give an inch in any discussion. It's certainly not 'a long way short' of 100% as you suggest. If a juror has no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they're 100% sure, or as near as damn it.
Rock God X wrote:You wouldn't think so. It's pretty much a semantic argument anyway, and I'm not going to sit and argue semantics with someone who's never been known to give an inch in any discussion. It's certainly not 'a long way short' of 100% as you suggest. If a juror has no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they're 100% sure, or as near as damn it.
Yeah, saw that. I also saw another similar piece from Thames Valley saying 'greater than 99%', which was kinda where I was going with it.
Edit: Just to expand a little, I used to work in the legal department of my local council, and later as a civilian enforcement officer preparing cases to both a civil and criminal standard. When training new staff and whatnot, the Solicitor in our department would always use 51% or 100% when explaining the difference between the standards of proof required. I guess he probably meant '100% or a figure that could reasonably be rounded up to 100% (i.e. greater than 99%)', but you get the picture. I don't doubt there are differing interpretations of it within the profession, but I'd worry if 91% was really considered the norm. That doesn't seem to be anywhere near high enough to deprive a person of their liberty (possibly forever) to me. I notice that that figure isn't cited, and I'd be interested to know where it came from. Certainly the American sites I have seen seem to put it nearer the 98 or 99% mark, though I doubt anyone would ever officially assign a figure to it anyway. In that respect, it will always be open to interpretation.
Yeah, saw that. I also saw another similar piece from Thames Valley saying 'greater than 99%', which was kinda where I was going with it.
Edit: Just to expand a little, I used to work in the legal department of my local council, and later as a civilian enforcement officer preparing cases to both a civil and criminal standard. When training new staff and whatnot, the Solicitor in our department would always use 51% or 100% when explaining the difference between the standards of proof required. I guess he probably meant '100% or a figure that could reasonably be rounded up to 100% (i.e. greater than 99%)', but you get the picture. I don't doubt there are differing interpretations of it within the profession, but I'd worry if 91% was really considered the norm. That doesn't seem to be anywhere near high enough to deprive a person of their liberty (possibly forever) to me. I notice that that figure isn't cited, and I'd be interested to know where it came from. Certainly the American sites I have seen seem to put it nearer the 98 or 99% mark, though I doubt anyone would ever officially assign a figure to it anyway. In that respect, it will always be open to interpretation.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Last edited by Rock God X on Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:28 pm
Mintball
All Time Great
Joined: May 10 2002 Posts: 47951 Location: Die Metropole
Sal Paradise wrote:My main reason for supporting capital punishment is to differentiate between crimes not that it might reduce crimes of this nature. I don't see what value society is getting in keeping Peter Sutcliffe in prison until he dies?
The 'value' is in being a civilised society.
And also in the belief that any sentence that the judicial system hands down should do or offer the potential for four things: protect the public, punish the offender, rehabilitate and bring about restitution.
That's in no particular order.
And I'm not trying to be funny, but you still seem to be avoiding that earlier point: if it is wrong to take someone's life from them, then why does it become right for the state so to do? (Let's ignore, for the sake of this and clarity, war and things like mercy killing)
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller
"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant
"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 4:57 pm
Ferocious Aardvark
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Rock God X wrote:... If a juror has no reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they're 100% sure, or as near as damn it.
You see, there's the problem right there.
The judge has to direct the jury how to do it.
You have just basically admitted that if YOU were the judge, your direction to the jury would be to find the defendant guilty if EITHER they were 100& sure OR "AS NEAR AS DAMN IT".
Now, I'm not trying to start an argument, but with respect, such a direction would be very confusing, as you have to explain, to those who don't get it, what you mean by "as near as damn it".
And you DO have to explain, because you are by definition saying there that they CAN convict even if they are NOT 100% sure. As long as, if not 100% sure, they are "as near as damn it" that sure.
Maybe something like, "beyond any reasonable doubt" would do the trick?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 5:00 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Sal Paradise wrote:My main reason for supporting capital punishment is to differentiate between crimes not that it might reduce crimes of this nature. I don't see what value society is getting in keeping Peter Sutcliffe in prison until he dies?
But you can't just change the law to say we can hang Peter Sutcliffe, you'd have to change it so that it's at least an option in all murder cases (subject to sentencing guidelines). And then we have the possibility of innocent men being killed by the state. If the law was ever to be changed, it would only be a matter of time before this would happen again.
Take aside all arguments about whether cases must be proved to 91%, 99% or 100% certainty, juries still get it wrong from time to time. It's better that we keep a thousand murderers in prison for life than that a single innocent man dies at the hands of the state, isn't it?
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 236 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
