U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2008, 10:15 AM
 
Location: The Woods
14,396 posts, read 13,577,460 times
Reputation: 5999

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Unless you speak for the entire Supreme Court, this statement mean nothing. The Court has and continues to decide what does and what does not constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Please cite the Court rulings that support whatever point you are trying so hard, but failing to make.
Not just the courts, the people do as well. Jury nullification, but most judges refuse to allow jurors to be informed of this right. And Congress may decide what cases the SCOTUS can hear. They can technically stop the Supreme Court from hearing any case by passing legislation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2008, 10:48 AM
 
29,079 posts, read 11,659,551 times
Reputation: 7713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShepsMom View Post
...Guilty until proven innocent?

As it stands right now, IUPG is a standard principle, but does it hold up in our society? When someone is arrested, do you always think that that person "innocent", or do you assume that this person is "guilty"?
Is this principle a true reflection of what general population feels/think, or is it just being politically correct?

Thoughts??
It doesn't matter what the general population feels/thinks. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a societal injunction, it's a courtroom standard. Jury members are instructed to presume innocence until they, individually, are convinced by the prosecution otherwise. Even if there is overwhelming public opinion otherwise, the jury's task is to objectively weigh the evidence they are shown at trial, and not to take public opinion into that process.

As far as the state is concerned, ALL defendants are guilty. They don't go to the expense of trying someone they think is innocent. The state's presumption of guilt has all the weight of the state's power behind it until the trial. The state incarcerates people prior to trial, they can remove children from a home, they can impound vehicles, they can freeze assets. The momentum belongs to the state. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a principle that the state or the people abide by, it is a principle to rein in the state momentum, it is a promise to citizens that trials actually do mean more than rubber-stamping the state's agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,913 posts, read 5,030,364 times
Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Not just the courts, the people do as well. Jury nullification, but most judges refuse to allow jurors to be informed of this right. And Congress may decide what cases the SCOTUS can hear. They can technically stop the Supreme Court from hearing any case by passing legislation.
Citation for this extraordinary claim?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 11:54 AM
 
Location: southern california
49,942 posts, read 47,049,712 times
Reputation: 41252
its our own fault. too many guilty walk. according to the court
OJ did not kill nicole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:28 PM
 
Location: The Woods
14,396 posts, read 13,577,460 times
Reputation: 5999
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Citation for this extraordinary claim?
Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,913 posts, read 5,030,364 times
Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Still doesn't answer the question. Citation that's on point please. Congress cannot expand nor restrict the jurisdiction of the SC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,278,208 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
And what about any of this even if 100% true amounts to "cruel and unusual" punishment?

Maybe you mean they were "unjustly convicted?"
In my opinion they are in prison for a crime they did not commit so every day they are in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,913 posts, read 5,030,364 times
Reputation: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
In my opinion they are in prison for a crime they did not commit so every day they are in prison constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Your argument lacks fundamental logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:06 PM
 
Location: The Woods
14,396 posts, read 13,577,460 times
Reputation: 5999
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Still doesn't answer the question. Citation that's on point please. Congress cannot expand nor restrict the jurisdiction of the SC.
Did you read it? It's right there:
Quote:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Exceptions...Congress may stop them from hearing an appeal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2008, 01:09 PM
 
339 posts, read 477,785 times
Reputation: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Oh, yes indeed, you are missing something.

Do you have any idea how many innocent men were sent to prison in the 80s by false charges of child molestation, when hysterical go-gooders were conducting their witch-hunts? Because this provision of a silly document called the US Constitution was waived to protect people who were not victims at all. The victims were those falsely accused, who had their constitutional due process conveniently set aside, so it would not hurt the feelings of children who had been manipulated into accusing them.

YOU think about who the victim is---thousands of innocent men in prison convicted of child molestation.
I'm not arguing that people have been falsely accused at all. As a matter of fact, I know someone who was. You know where he is right now? Probably watching ESPN in his living room, because the cops cleared him.

Anyhow...You are changing the focus to fit your view. What about the ones who aren't falsely accused? There are, unfortunately, tons of those. You were talking about the right to confront witnesses. I was asking how the hell you confont a 2 year old? That's all. I was also going on your literal interpretation of bail. Can you address this please? Thanks!

There are not thousands of innocent men in prison for child molestation either. There is a little more to it than just being accused and being shipped off to prison. You make it sound like someone is accused and then they go to prison. There are thousands of accused who never even see the inside of the courtroom because there is not enough to charge or convict them. The cops clear a lot of them too. A cops job isn't to railroad someone contrary to the info. some of these people are spewing. Their job is to get to the truth regardless of what it is. Cops CLEAR a lot of people too, but the conspiracy theorists seem to leave this out.

Last edited by JDTD; 12-26-2008 at 02:20 PM.. Reason: My post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top