View Poll Results: Two simple choices

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Zimmerman

    1 9.09%
  • Ambassador Stevens Killers

    10 90.91%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Who should our Govt be arresting?

  1. #11
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    They are not considered "double jeopardy" because:

    Civil courts assess financial liability for damages, they do not impose criminal penalties. A civil suit for "wrongful death" is a monetary claim for civil losses either compensatory and/or punitive. Compensatory in this case would include pain and suffering endured by the surviving family members due to their loved one's absence and perhaps burial costs. In those states that allow punitive damages, such damages are intended to punish the person who caused the wrongful death and discourage similar behavior.

    A Federal civil rights case is based upon alleged violations of a victims civil rghts. While murder may be the source, the criminal charge is NOT "murder" but rather that the person who was killed was deprived of a fair evalution regarding his right to life under color of the law. Therefore the person who caused the death was not properly held accountable for this civil rights violation. (see 18 U.S.C. 242)
    I know the reasons. Just rationalizing, IMO. We're taking one crime... the same crime... and re-categorizing it multiple times to our liking. That is consciously skirting the purpose of double-jeopardy.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #12
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Sorry, but you are incorrect. "They"... intentionally used loosely... can indeed continue to go after him. The Martin family can, and probably will, sue in civil court. The feds might go after him for civil rights violations.

    I personally believe that both of these scenarios involve double jeopardy, but courts have ruled that they do not, and my opinion carries no weight in our legal system.
    Neither does the Constitution most of the time.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  3. #13
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    when did the constitution, apply to the people?

  4. #14
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,568
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I know the reasons. Just rationalizing, IMO. We're taking one crime... the same crime... and re-categorizing it multiple times to our liking. That is consciously skirting the purpose of double-jeopardy.
    Well, if there were no real differences between criminal acts and civil liabilities then we would not have criminal and civil courts. We would only have "criminal" courts because everything would be a crime worthy of restrictions on your liberty rights.

    However, regarding Federal civil rights cases, I admit that I find them suspect in any case where a Not Guilty decision has actually been rendered. By this I mean that I think they have validity in cases when either a State fails to prosecute, or a trial ends in a hung jury and a State decides not to try again. This is why the Federal laws were originally passed, due to examples where evidence clearly showed a crime but police failed to arrest, States failed to prosecute, or jury's failed to reach a final decision. I DON"T think it should be used when a jury HAS rendered a decision by a finding of Not Guilty. That's why I stated in my prior post that I didn't think the DOJ would end up filing a case against Zimmerman, despite all the "sound and fury."
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  5. #15
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Well, if there were no real differences between criminal acts and civil liabilities then we would not have criminal and civil courts. We would only have "criminal" courts because everything would be a crime worthy of restrictions on your liberty rights.

    However, regarding Federal civil rights cases, I admit that I find them suspect in any case where a Not Guilty decision has actually been rendered. By this I mean that I think they have validity in cases when either a State fails to prosecute, or a trial ends in a hung jury and a State decides not to try again. This is why the Federal laws were originally passed, due to examples where evidence clearly showed a crime but police failed to arrest, States failed to prosecute, or jury's failed to reach a final decision. I DON"T think it should be used when a jury HAS rendered a decision by a finding of Not Guilty. That's why I stated in my prior post that I didn't think the DOJ would end up filing a case against Zimmerman, despite all the "sound and fury."
    re: criminal vs civil
    I wouldn't suggest only having one or the other, but rather choosing one or the other.

    re: civil rights violations
    What you said echoes my sentiments closely, only I couldn't think of a good way to articulate it. You did well.

    I don't mind so much that there are different categories*, just... pick one.

    *- I do mind special "hate crime" penalties, but that's a different issue for another thread.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  6. #16
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,568
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    re: criminal vs civil
    I wouldn't suggest only having one or the other, but rather choosing one or the other.
    I disagree. A person can be found "not guilty" of a crime involving the death of someone because there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction even though harm has occurred. As we all know, the burden at the criminal level is very high; proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Civil cases have a lesser burden of proof; prepondernace of the evidence. Even if the criiminal act could not be proved, if there was actual financial harm that might be attributed to the defendant's actions then he should also face a determination as to whether or not he can be held financially responsible.

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    re: civil rights violations
    What you said echoes my sentiments closely, only I couldn't think of a good way to articulate it. You did well.
    Aww shucks, it weren't nothin... lol Thanks.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #17
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    I disagree. A person can be found "not guilty" of a crime involving the death of someone because there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction even though harm has occurred. As we all know, the burden at the criminal level is very high; proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Civil cases have a lesser burden of proof; prepondernace of the evidence. Even if the criiminal act could not be proved, if there was actual financial harm that might be attributed to the defendant's actions then he should also face a determination as to whether or not he can be held financially responsible.
    To me the level of burden of proof required for each is completely and totally irrelevant. You're still subjecting the accused to more than one trial for a single offense. Now, courts keep allowing expansions into additional areas, and the accused are faced with a never-ending series of defenses. Kind of a "if we can't get them for this, we'll get them for that" mindset. The spirit of the prohibition against double-jeopardy is supposed to guard against that.

    As far as criminal vs civil goes, it would ease my concerns a bit if we allowed literal innocence to be a valid verdict. As it stands now, you're either guilty or not guilty, which essentially means "it was proven" or "it couldn't be proven (but sill happened... *wink wink, nod nod*)". If we had "innocent" as an option, which would then bar ANY future trials or accusations, including civil, then I would be more willing to accept double-jeopardy... though I probably still wouldn't like it.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  8. #18
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,568
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    To me the level of burden of proof required for each is completely and totally irrelevant. You're still subjecting the accused to more than one trial for a single offense. Now, courts keep allowing expansions into additional areas, and the accused are faced with a never-ending series of defenses. Kind of a "if we can't get them for this, we'll get them for that" mindset. The spirit of the prohibition against double-jeopardy is supposed to guard against that.
    It is relevant. Otherwise we would have to allow a criminal court to determine not only criminal guilt, but also civil liability for his actions. We hold civil liability to a lesser standard because the "punishment" is only financial, and is limited (despite jury awards) to what a defendant can actually pay.

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    As far as criminal vs civil goes, it would ease my concerns a bit if we allowed literal innocence to be a valid verdict. As it stands now, you're either guilty or not guilty, which essentially means "it was proven" or "it couldn't be proven (but sill happened... *wink wink, nod nod*)". If we had "innocent" as an option, which would then bar ANY future trials or accusations, including civil, then I would be more willing to accept double-jeopardy... though I probably still wouldn't like it.
    We can't state categorically that a person is absolutely innocent, because in that case there would be no need for a trial, it would be self-evident from an examination of the incident. A trial is required when there is evidence that the Defendant may have been the perpetrator and then (perhaps) the question arises whether his actions had a valid excusable reason. This is why the burden of proof is so high; he is on trial because the State beleives it has enough evidence to show he was responsible and had no excusable reason. We can only deteremine if that is correct or not, not that he is actually completely innocent.

    However, as you may have seen in all of my posts on this subject, I personally extend the presumption of innocence after a not guilty verdict. I will maintain that until either new evidence comes to light (which changes nothing due to double-jeopardy) or the defendant admits his actual guilt later. At that point I will consider him a guilty, but lucky, SOB.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 07-21-13 at 08:36 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  9. #19
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    It is relevant. Otherwise we would have to allow a criminal court to determine not only criminal guilt, but also civil liability for his actions. We hold civil liability to a lesser standard because the "punishment" is only financial, and is limited (despite jury awards) to what a defendant can actually pay.
    We'd still be trying them multiple times for the same crime. No way around that.

    Financial punishment isn't an "only" proposition, either. Simply hiring lawyers is enough to punish someone and drive them to the proverbial poor house... which is a reason in and of itself that I have seen some use as justification for civil trials after acquittal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    We can't state categorically that a person is absolutely innocent, because in that case there would be no need for a trial, it would be self-evident from an examination of the incident. A trial is required when there is evidence that the Defendant may have been the perpetrator and then (perhaps) the question arises whether his actions had a valid excusable reason. This is why the burden of proof is so high; he is on trial because the State beleives it has enough evidence to show he was responsible and had no excusable reason. We can only deteremine if that is correct or not, not that he is actually completely innocent.

    However, as you may have seen in all of my posts on this subject, I personally extend the presumption of innocence after a not guilty verdict. I will maintain that until either new evidence comes to light (which changes nothing due to double-jeopardy) or the defendant admits his actual guilt later. At that point I will consider him a guilty, but lucky, SOB.
    The trial... either jury, or judge in a bench trial... would render a verdict of innocent. There are indeed innocent people who are convicted then later exonerated. I see no reason why a jury or judge cannot see factual innocence and render such a verdict. Essentially saying, "Yes, the prosecution presented guilt, and we simply don't buy it. Period." And they might be correct.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #20
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,568
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Who should our Govt be arresting?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    We'd still be trying them multiple times for the same crime. No way around that.
    Only to the extent of my right to recover finanacial losses due to his action. If you cause finanacial harm, criminal courts won't deal that with unless it is the root crime itself (theft, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) and then only via liberty penalties (although some states have added restitution penalties).

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    The trial... either jury, or judge in a bench trial... would render a verdict of innocent. There are indeed innocent people who are convicted then later exonerated. I see no reason why a jury or judge cannot see factual innocence and render such a verdict. Essentially saying, "Yes, the prosecution presented guilt, and we simply don't buy it. Period." And they might be correct.
    You can't see because you simply refuse to. The presumption of innocence is stressed simply to insure that the jurors are forced to start from that position, rather than the typical one of "he must have done something wrong or he wouldn't be here." Unless there is incontrovertible evidence of innocence (in which case there would never have been a trial at all) there is really no way to be certain a person is innocent simply based on evidence presented. All one can do is presume it and make the State show enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Therefore, you may be willing to continue to presume innocence but that does not actually make it true. He could be guilty as hell, just lucky there wasn't enough evidence to show it.

    As for innocent people convicted? Yes it happens, and probably a lot more frequently then people believe. But we have an appellate system for that contingency which is free to examine any new information that arises. In the case of a "not guilty" verdict, we are prevented from retrial by the principle of doube jeopardy.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 07-21-13 at 09:11 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •