Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Lawmakers in Oklahoma pass bill that would make performing abortions a felony

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
    You're way off.

    My position is that if we have surveillance or hard forensics linking somebody to a crime, we really shouldn't have to involve the public. It's a waste of money, peoples time, and runs the risk of people bringing in unnecessary biases to a cut and dried case.
    How the heck could that even possible work? Seriously, that makes no sense at all.

    Explain this one to me - how do you see this functioning?
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      How the heck could that even possible work? Seriously, that makes no sense at all.

      Explain this one to me - how do you see this functioning?
      So much for "due process".
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        But, let's say we have the body cam video of a police officer who shoots an apparently unarmed man -- but we only have that video. What we might not have is the facts that led up to that - perhaps the robbery he just committed, or a person he just murdered....

        I think there are a lot of things that could be assumed to be "cut and dried", but in the light of .... it's like (literally) taking something out of context. We need the context in which the "hard forensics" exist.
        Agreed.

        The evidence has to be based on the sum of all things considered. That's why on the Michelle Fields thing it pissed me off so bad that people were still defending her, even though we could see she lied like a dog.

        Comment


        • Or ANY process.

          I'll wait for SoR's response
          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Quill Sword

          Comment


          • Kinda getting off track. Maybe some other time.

            Though I love raising peoples eyebrows.
            Last edited by Sea of red; 05-24-2016, 09:48 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              Agreed.

              The evidence has to be based on the sum of all things considered.
              Which is why all the evidence is presented to a jury.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Which is why all the evidence is presented to a jury.
                You have more faith in them than I do.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                  You have more faith in them than I do.
                  Actually, I often think... "ok, now your fate is in the hands of 12 people too stupid to find a way to get out of jury duty".


                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Actually, I often think... "ok, now your fate is in the hands of 12 people too stupid to find a way to get out of jury duty".


                    Pretty much.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                      Pretty much.
                      But I think that's part of the problem -- it's not really a "jury of your peers" - it's whoever they can con into showing up.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        But I think that's part of the problem -- it's not really a "jury of your peers" - it's whoever they can con into showing up.
                        Or doesn't have a job.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Tell you what, prove your own perfect impartiality then you can tell others how to be impartial. When you get that pole out of your eye, I'll let you help me with my speck.

                          Brown wasn't the first test case - probably not the 100th, either. You totally missed the point - it's not okay to allow an injustice to continue merely because it's politically expedient - and yes, that IS ultimately what you are arguing for here. NO ONE, not you, not Governor Fallin, not Fibber McGhee - NO ONE can predict what test case will succeed. When Mr Brown tried to enroll his kid in a white school he had no way to know that case would succeed where all its predecessors had failed and every reason to believe it would not. 1960's America didn't have any pro-civil right majority ANYWHERE. The political climate was incredibly hostile - so according to you, Mr Brown shouldn't have bothered decent folk with the expense of a hopeless test case.
                          I've never claimed impartiality, although abortion isn't an emotional issue for me. I'm claiming that your own desire for abortion to be banned is clouding your judgement. That no one knows, for certain, that a given test case will succeed isn't germane here. Any given test case can still be evaluated for how strong or weak a case it is. This one was weak. Otherwise why would the Governor veto it considering that big ole list of things from my earlier reply? Simply repeating that Brown happened doesn't tell anyone here anything at all.

                          Landmark supreme court cases are the product of their environment as much as they are the product of the law. Brown was where separate but equal was struck down. They showed that it was not fulfilling the object of the 14th amendment. I don't know offhand what the polling showed, but as far as post-roe polling goes it looks like American views on abortion have changed remarkably little over the last 40 years. I wonder how views on race changed from the late 1800's to the post-world war 2 era.

                          I imagine they shifted a hell of a lot more than what we've seen in the post-roe world.

                          Oh, and please stop with this line of argument about me thinking that Brown shouldn't have bothered (and it was a class action lawsuit anyway) because I have not argued that people shouldn't make test cases of laws they find unjust. I said this test case sucked so bad that the pro-life Governor of Oklahoma thought it was such a weak test case she veto'd it instead of defending it. Saying that no one can predict [with perfect accuracy] what SCOTUS will rule does not mean that cases cannot be weak enough that the low % chance of getting a favorable outcome makes it a bad idea. That is what happened here and your repetitive argument about Brown do not support the notion that the OK bill wasn't as much of a stinker as the Governor thought.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                            No, but it demonstrates that our system is deeply flawed. Things need be changed.

                            When our legal system was founded we didn't have forensics, so personal testimony and character judgements from the community were used. It's all we had at the time but now we know much better. We have experts and scientific data that can directly link someone to a crime scene - making juries unnecessary in those cases.
                            Forensics can't provide motive or action in a crime. For example, showing that a person's DNA is on a gun next to a dead person doesn't show that the person killed the guy, it only shows that at some point in time, the person touched the gun, or someone placed his DNA on the gun. You have to establish motive, timelines, opportunity, murder or self defense or frame job, etc. And that takes witnesses, and evidence ALWAYS takes human decisions to determine guilt or innocence. I would rather trust 12 people making the decision, than one person (the Judge). The only thing I would change is making sure juries were better educated on weighing evidence than they are now. And actually understood the legal system better.
                            Last edited by Sparko; 05-25-2016, 08:04 AM. Reason: uncharitable. too much coffee this morning. Sorry

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              ...The only thing I would change is making sure juries were better educated on weighing evidence than they are now. And actually understood the legal system better, which you clearly don't.
                              And a good attorney realizes this is his job - whether it should be or not.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post


                                No, Teal. It's a testament to how contaminated juries can become when exposed to outside influences. The defense made an absolute mockery of that court room, and those jurors were never going to convict OJ, regardless of how strong the evidence was. Don't be so naive as to think they actually considered the evidence or cared about the victims. They didn't care if OJ murdered someone. It was about some warped perception of justice which involved letting an obvious murderer go free.
                                Our system is designed to let the guilty go free over putting the innocent in jail. Sometimes it works out badly in either direction, the guilty go free, or the innocent get convicted. But on the whole, I think a system that favors keeping the innocent out of prison while letting a few guilty go free, is better than the alternative. I like a system where it is harder to convict someone, rather than a system that convicts at the drop of a hat.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X