Anti-Smoking Court Ruling So Insane It Sounds Like a Comedy Skit

[brian64]

Capt’n: You may very well be correct that it’s less than 5% but I do not think it’s as rare as you think it is. I hope I’m wrong about that though.

Again, in the rape example where there was no DNA evidence originally and later DNA evidence showed someone else (an ADDITIONAL person) was involved doesn't mean the first person wasn't involved also

It doesn't mean they were involved either. The cases I recall (and there was more than one) there really was no reasonable doubt in the end that they were wrongfully convicted. And it wasn't just rape cases...there were other cases including murder cases.
Also, you’ve made reference several times to “cops don’t just randomly arrest people”. You seem to be of the perception that if someone is arrested it almost certainly means they’re guilty. There are many circumstances under which someone might be arrested without it being random, but they might not be guilty.
An arrest warrant can be issued based on an indictment that does not necessarily have any conclusive evidence backing it up. It is not at all rare for someone to be found innocent at trial who really is innocent.

 

[brian64]

@loadclear: Very good points and I agree completely.

 

[seacaptain]

Also, you’ve made reference several times to “cops don’t just randomly arrest people”. You seem to be of the perception that if someone is arrested it almost certainly means they’re guilty. There are many circumstances under which someone might be arrested without it being random, but they might not be guilty.

No, I don't think it means they're guilty necessarily. I do think it means they're involved in some way. My point is that when people/media etc. claim "innocent" people get convicted, they purposely try a make it sound as if the police are randomly picking up innocent people off the street and framing them.
The reality is that most "innocent" people are involved in the crimes they were convicted of, and then get off on a technicality.
Also, I think we're forgetting that all of these people were originally convicted by juries who had a chance to weigh the evidence. I don't think that juries tend to convict random innocent people.
Again, my overall point is that the vast majority of "innocent" people who have convictions overturned were still involved in the crime in some way, and not random people that were framed by a corrupt justice system.

 

[loadclear]

Something to be cognizant of, is that anyone who is convicted of a felony, has had their case heard before 2 juries. The first is the Grand Jury, which determines if the police and the DA are FOS, or doing the right thing. The Grand Jury listens to charges, testimony from witnesses and LEO's and determine if an indictment is warranted. I just got off serving 3 months as a Grand Juror. We didn't vote "true bill"(indict) on all of them.
However, the vast majority were not OJ, or Ocean's 11 kind of cases. In fact, none of them were in my experience. We saw everything from purse snatching at grocery stores to homicides... Out of dozens of cases, NONE were even slightly questionable on the facts.
However, the police in a few cases, attempted to overcharge particularly in the cases of assault (on a police officer), and we nipped those in the butt. (sorry, but an officer scratching his elbow while tackling a suspect is not felony assault). I also saw a fair amount of laziness on the part of both police officers and prosecutors. At first, they took several things for granted, but after we, the jury, voted down some cases due to their laziness, they quickly learned to have their ducks in a row for the next session.
I'm absolutely sure that some people in prison shouldn't be. However, the percentages, based on my experience in the justice system are infinitesimally small. The vast majority of cases are simply easy to figure out. Also, the jurors I served with were particularly intelligent, cognizant, and healthily suspicious of the prosecution.

 

[brian64]

No, I don't think it means they're guilty necessarily. I do think it means they're involved in some way.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that point if you really think that an arrest automatically means the person is “involved in some way”. I’ll stick with innocent until proven guilty.

My point is that when people/media etc. claim "innocent" people get convicted, they purposely try a make it sound as if the police are randomly picking up innocent people off the street and framing them.

I certainly never said that police were randomly picking up people and framing them...and honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that, at least not in terms of it being some kind of common occurrence.
But I think the whole process is a lot more complicated than you’re portraying it. There are many types of crimes, including financial crimes for example that are very murky. Or in the case of violent crime, there are crime labs involved, for example, that may or may not produce accurate results. Then there is often political pressure for an indictment to be made in certain crimes.
I’m always puzzled when people who otherwise promote vigilance in protecting our liberties, at the same time seem to have some kind of blind faith in the “criminal justice system”.
@loadclear: That is all very interesting...thanks for the input. I think it's important to point out though that grand juries are only hearing one side of the argument and their determination is only as good as the veracity of the information presented to them.

Also, the jurors I served with were particularly intelligent, cognizant, and healthily suspicious of the prosecution.

That's good to know. I wonder how often that is the case.

 

[seacaptain]

We will just have to agree to disagree on that point if you really think that an arrest automatically means the person is “involved in some way”. I’ll stick with innocent until proven guilty.

We're just talking in circles at this point. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying.
I'm just pointing out that most "innocent" people who get convictions overturned are not a product of a corrupt justice system. They just managed to convince a judge that additional doubt exists that didn't exist when they were originally convicted, which doesn't mean they're "innocent" or uninvolved in the crime.
I don't believe for a minute that our prisons are filled with "innocent" people. As loudclear says it's infinitesimally small, but where true corruption does exist, I agree that we should eliminate it.

 

[brian64]

My apologies in advance for bumping this, but I just haven’t had the chance until now to reply properly.

I don't believe for a minute that our prisons are filled with "innocent" people.

I don’t believe that either, and I never even hinted that our prisons are “filled with innocent people”. I simply think that false convictions may not be as rare as most people seem to think. Here are a few additional points to consider that I failed to make previously:
1. Self defense cases: many of these scenarios get complicated, and it’s not unusual for people who used force in legitimate self-defense (especially if it’s with a firearm) to find themselves charged with a crime...and there seems to be no shortage of prosecutors who will go after these types of cases.
2. The whole corrosive situation with the “war on drugs” has created a lot of potential for false charges...everything from false information from paid informants and anonymous informants to just plain police corruption and the potential for planting evidence (which I think would be very naive for anyone to think never happens).
3. Lastly is the issue of “jury nullification”, which I will not delve into here, but suffice to say, judges instruct juries in a manner to attempt preventing them from exercising this power in cases where it is appropriate.

 

[oldmansmoking]

So an April fools post!

April fools so yesterday!

Should be banned as well as fireworks sold to the public!

 

[aldecaker]

"So an April fools post!

April fools so yesterday!

Should be banned as well as fireworks sold to the public!"
Are you drunk?

 

[oldmansmoking]

mso489

Preferred Member

Joined: Feb 2013

Posts: 20,172

offline

Send Private Message

'a couple of nifty April Fools posts also popped up. Especially the first one really had me, the second one I was forewarned.

New to the forums? Not here every second of every day? Here are some threads you may have missed:

Zack24 heads to the Andes
Second hand smoke considered cruel and unusual, $100k payout, reflections on the prison system
Pipe smoking and BDSM collide in a great thread

As regards “are you drunk”! Should I be?

 

[aldecaker]

"Should I be?"
Couldn't hurt, I suppose.

 

[huntertrw]

Ecclesiastical Denzel Washington had his death sentence reduced to life in prison. He argued his exposure to second-hand smoke as an asthmatic was cruel and unusual punishment.

But murdering two women by strangulation does not constitute, "...cruel and unusual punishment..."?

 

[aldecaker]

For better or for worse, the state gets held to a different standard than your garden-variety shitbag. Kind of like one side having "rules of engagement" while fighting asymmetrical warfare.