Leticia James is a loser!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
Go ahead and do your own search rather than armchair-quarterback when you have nothing else to contribute.
No, I wouldn't.
I can guess you might be referring to the Spencer report (http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf) but not only is that far from the only study of the issue, it is also almost 20 years old.
That's also not flipping a coin.
Do you understand probability?
I suspect he would have been acquitted in criminal court.
The system is designed to let guilty people go free in order to err on the side of caution.
It is understood and expected that guilty people walk in criminal court.
The system is designed that way on purpose.
No. It is one of the fundamental principles of the right to life, liberty and to be free from unjust persecution.
Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man have his life or liberty taken.
You think I would just pick a stat out of the air like you do?
Don't be lazy...look it up for yourself.
In 2007, Northwestern conducted a study. Nothing would have changed since then to significantly change jury behaviour.
Lots of info out there on jury bias, etc.
Maybe get off your welfare-collecting butt and put in some effort to educate yourself before going on the attack.
The burden of proof is much higher in criminal court than civil court.
It's not designed to let guilty people go free as Valcazar suggested. It does happen sometimes when there is insufficient proof but that's not how it was purposely designed.
If someone is to be convicted of a crime, there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
If a jury is biased or unable to process the information properly it can lead to guilty or not guilty verdicts as well.
But the system was designed to ensure someone is either rightfully convicted or not convicted. No system is perfect of course.
Nothing you post is trustworthy, skoob.
If you can't back it up, then its clear you're bullshitting again.
You think the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is a conspiracy theory?
Exactly.
Now, there is a lot to be said about how well that principle is upheld without money to afford all the due process you are legally allowed, but the basic idea is well known and taught in elementary school still, I think.
No…It doesn’t.
That is how the system is designed. It’s like that on purpose. That’s why OJ walked free.
Last edited:
For the record, if you are going to make a claim here in the Politics Section it is expected that you will provide a link/reference to whatever source you believe supports your point of view.
If you want to offer your own opinion you are of course welcome to do so but none of us are under any obligation to take you seriously unless you provide actual evidence to support what you are claiming.
None of us are under any obligation to disprove your n̶o̶n̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶…errrr…point of view. The obligation is on you to prove it.
kapish?
Last edited:
Yes, it was purposely designed to make the burden very high, with the understanding that it is better that a guilty person go free than an innocent one be punished with the full power of the state.
No one denies this.
Yes.
This is the standard set.
Again, if the full power of the State is to be used to deprive you of life and liberty, the standard should be extremely high.
Even if reasonable people agree it is most likely you committed the crime, that isn't enough to bring the apparatus of the State to bear.
This is also why you can still get redress in civil court - because it is understood that people should be able to hold you to account despite the limitations of government power.
It absolutely isn't perfect.
This hedge against state power was reached as an attempt to deal with the issue and other countries have come up with different approaches.
I linked to the study he is referencing in an earlier post. (Since that was my best guess and it turned out to be correct.)
Sounds like what laziness would sound like if it could speak.
Here...there's this thing called the "internet" and a website called "Google". Based on the info I provided, people who discover the wonders of how to operate a web search would simply type in what I shared and voila! Like pure magic, you would find exactly what I was referring to. No tricks or engineering degree required.
Because I feel generous I'll even provide instructions:
1) subscribe to an internet service from the provider of your choice or go to a library and borrow one of their computers (those things that look like TV's)
2) double click the icon that looks like a multi-coloured circle named "Google Chrome"
3) It will open to a screen that has a white square with a blinking cursor within it...don't be afraid...we can get through this together!
4) Use that thing with a bunch of buttons on it each labelled with letters, numbers and symbols and type: "2007 Northwestern jury accuracy study"
5) Press the Enter key...usually the one labelled "Enter"...you can use a single finger to do this...sometimes two...in your case, since you have small hands, I would suggest three.
6) Observe the list of items presented which apply to the topic at hand...read away and educate yourself!
Congratulations! If you've made it this far I assume you found what you're looking for!
You're welcome!
Sorry...you take so long to reply to posts that I'm not sure what the context of your question is and what it's related to?
Care to expand more than a sentence if a discussion is important to you?
So happy to see you and FF figured out how to use the internet.
Teamwork makes the dream work!
