Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: "'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the worst thing to ever happen to the US." (Read 8530 times)
|
|
CA_Libertarian
|
The title of this thread is my brother's opinion. We got into a heated debate about this the other day, and I just wanted to share this with you, and maybe get some advice on an effective argument. The reason this came up is we were discussing OJ Simpson.
My brother's opinion is that it would be better to punish more innocent people than to keep letting so many guilty persons go free. I contended that there is no greater wrong than to take an individual's rights for the 'greater good.' I also recited Thomas Jefferson: "The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." He said he was familiar with that quote, but he doesn't think it applies. His response: "you would feel differently if you were the victim of a crime that went unpunished." I responded, "you would feel differently if you were punished for a crime not committed."
He then went on about how "libertarians are idealists and Republicans" are realists." He ranted about how 'people like you [libertarians]' won't compromise to get some degree of success, and we're to blame for not helping fix the problems. I confirmed that I am not willing to compromise what I think is right, and countered that if conservatives didn't compromise their values, we would have the voting power and firepower to keep our rights.
Eventually, he threw out some ad hominem comments and changed the subject. I didn't want to turn it into a name-calling contest, so I let it drop.
My hope is to find a way to show him the error of his thinking. I'm open to whatever advice you can offer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
|
|
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
I'm an anarchist.
No other planetary inhabitant has ANY supposed "authority" or "jurisdiction" over my sovereign existence.
Each and every other planetary inhabitant has this same sovereignty.
Unfortunately, most have been misled/misguided with respect to this.
With that being said...
Let's hypothetically place ourselves in a totally anarchist galaxy and look at the basis for a "jury".
Of course we have to define "jury" first. "Jury" refers to twelve sovereign entities who have direct knowledge of the "defendant"(this has been subverted in American "courts" with the jury pool being selected from people with no personal knowledge of the defendant...so how could they ever really "know" what the defendant's "mindset" or "intent" "really" "was" or "wasn't"?).
I'll not debate on the issue of having twelve "jurors" other than to say Vin Suprynowicz investigated this since in some areas a jury of six is used instead. He found that the odds of being WRONGLY convicted are MUCH greater with only six jurors(this stands to reason as six will agree with each other much more often than twelve would). In an anarchist galaxy this number might possibly grow just to protect the innocent, but should never be reduced.
Then we have to define a "crime". The only "crimes" in an anarchist galaxy would be those which have a provable "victim"(real sovereign and not some supposed "collective") and/or provable damage/injury to "person" and/or "property".
I guess the first question I would ask the victim is how they became a victim(or perhaps why they became a victim or why the damage occurred)?
In an anarchist galaxy we would expect/demand that each sovereign provide for their own defense and the defense and safe keeping of their property. Of course they could provide this themselves totally and/or contract any/all of it to a provider.
What I'm getting at is, if the supposed "victim" didn't "value" their personal "security" enough to adequately "refuse to be a victim" to begin with...
Why are other sovereigns being asked to gather as a jury and "decide" whether there really is/was a victim/perpetrator/crime/damage/injury...
So we have a "victim" of rape(note I am not identifying the sex as it could be either).
The victim was adequately armed to provide for their defense but were deceived by someone they thought they could trust.
The victim also had provided for their additional security by contracting with a private defense assistance firm.
This firm was providing service "as contracted" and was not present as this "perpetrator" was "known" and "trusted" by the "victim".
After reviewing the facts/evidence/testimony the jury unanimously finds the "defendant" "guilty" of "rape"(aggression/force/fraud).
The jury then turns to the "victim" and demands the "victim" determine the "punishment".
This can be anything the "victim" decides...
Anything from just forgiving the perpetrator, to lifetime servitude, to being put to death(must be by the "victim's" own "hand").
In this way the jury and the court provides a sort of "do-over" to the original crime.
The victim now knows that the perpetrator means them harm and can defend/fight or submit/forgive.
Obviously they were already "forced" to "submit" to the rape once...
If they just wanted to "submit/forgive" then they wouldn't even have to call a jury and proceedings(although they should just to let others know of the perpetrator's deceit and aggression/force/fraud.
Some people might think that the jury should also be able to determine the punishment but that would be prohibited because they were not either the victim or an immediate party in the vicinity of the crime at the exact time of the crime.
What do I mean to say by that?
Simple, let's change the scenario...
Now, I'm not sitting on a jury of twelve...I'm changing the situation to provide an additional example.
The victim, adequately prepared but deceived, is being raped. The rapist has removed the victim's means of resistance and defense. The victim is crying out for help and for the perpetrator to stop. There is obvious aggression/force/fraud going on here. There is force. There is torn clothing. There is blood.
Knowing that the victim can/could be "convicted" of deceit/fraud for requesting/calling out for help in a false situation, and that I could effect a punishment against this supposed victim if it proved to be a fraud(up to and including death, much the same as the duels of old might well cause the death of one or both parties to the disagreement/duel), I come to the immediate aid of the victim and dispatch the perpetrator with death.
So, as a "juror" after the fact...I can help decide if aggression/force/fraud occurred, but I can't determine or provide punishment.
But, as a "contractor", ready for "hire/direction/assignment", I can/could come to the assistance/defense of the victim/employer.
In an anarchist galaxy it would be well known that immediate death could very well be the "just reward" for aggression/force/fraud.
In other words, it wouldn't happen much and when it did, the perpetrator would only "do" it once...or maybe twice if "forgiven/submitted to" the first time.
So I think it's a good idea to have "beyond a reasonable doubt"...
I think it's better to let a guilty person go than to accidentally punish an innocent person...
The real answer here(and to your brother) is to "judge" everything by the Non-Aggression Principle AND the Golden Rule.
Has aggression/force/fraud occurred(applying the NAP) and have you "put yourself in the other party's place"(with the Golden Rule) to see how you would feel on the "other side" of things?
Most people want a jury to "convict" someone they think is "guilty" but those same people would not want a jury to convict THEM of the SAME crime!?!
Oh, they would have some reason why THEY shouldn't be held accountable...but why SOMEONE ELSE should be!?!
I am solidly in support of FIJA and Fully Informed Juries!
I dream of the day when REAL juries are called to assist after REAL crimes have occurred!
Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gabriel
|
My hope is to find a way to show him the error of his thinking.
You probably can't. Based on what you've written, his problem is not one of erroneous logic; there are no syllogisms that can prove he is wrong. The difference is one of basic philosophy: if he honestly holds it as axiomatic that it is better to punish the innocent than to let the guilty go free, there's no argument that can sway him. You can't argue against beliefs. If I had to try to make a case, I'd probably go the economic route, analyzing the likely effects on overall prosperity of the two different policies, pointing out that while allowing the guilty to go free has negative consequences, punishing the innocent does too and worse (lost productivity of those incarcerated, fear and distrust of the government leading to lack of cooperation with law enforcement leading to more guilty going unpunished as well, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
“Worst thing to happen to the U.S.”? He should be reminded our system was predicated upon this idea; it wasn’t something that was pasted on afterward.
That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved. — Benjamin Franklin, 1785
So if he doesn’t like that, he could always just leave. “Love it or leave it,” as the stereotypical conservatives like to say.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
yoplait
|
I love the "idealist" v. "realist" BS.  It's a great way for a person without principles to explain their actions. "I support a party full of Orwellian Socialists because I'm a REALIST!" Give me a break. I'm a realist too. I know that we can't get rid of the gov't programs I want to get rid of tomorrow...it doesn't change the fact that I want to get rid of them... But back to your topic, I think there's a good pragmatic argument to be made that a society that allows prosecutors and cops to easily convict anyone that they think is guilty (or just plain don't like) is a bad society to live in...prosecutors and cops already have too much power b/c juries often defer to them...giving juries less power only gives YOU as a citizen less power and gives the gov't more. Besides, sometimes I want "guilty" people to go free!! Alot of laws are STUPID and juries purposely exonerate people who break them...it's a great check against a tyrannical gov't. But yeah, OJ going free is a fun thing to yell about on Bill O'Reilly...it keeps one distracted long enough to make the matrix seem real and tyranny to seem unimportant. PS: Your bro thinking our Constitutional system is bad is more proof that conservatives are NOT conservatives (i.e., people who want to preserve the past). They're simply people who LIKE to obey orders and roll their eyes at people who don't get in line. An odd bunch those chaps (speaking as someone who used to be one). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LibertyforLife
|
I too am an anarchist and I would love to live in Power's galaxy. Power, if you find the door, let me know, me and my family are moving.
I on the other hand look at things a little different then some others. I draw apon the experiences of the past, the present, and the future(supposed) and try to solve the problem using logic and reason.
I agree with Power totally when he talks about juries however I also apply a little more logic and reason. When have you ever found 12 people who can totally agree on anything, let alone someone's guilt or innocence?
I personally have never experienced it, my logic says it could exist, my reason says its not probable. This is my own opinion based on my experience, you may have different experiences on this then I have and I would defer to your experience after careful review.
The Bible contains within a the idea that a man found totally innocent must be innocence. A man who is found totally guilty should not be convicted because rarely do many people see eye to eye and agree to that level of certainty. I believe it was found that a man who is guilty must be found by at the least 5 of 10, but no more then 8 of 10. Anything less is unsure, and anything more is conspiracy.
Imagine for a moment our current system. All 12 people must agree that a man is guilty to convict him. If one or more of them decides that he is not then it is hung and a do-over is in store(most of the times). If all believe he is innocent then he freed.
I believe a case in humanity could be made that some people are more likely to change their minds other then what their own minds come up with by others. Groups of people, as it is said are less intelligent then the individual. I have heard that a jury takes a vote, and then they try to convince each other one way or another. If it were me, I'd generally go with the first vote and not deliberate at all.
However as a free thinker, I'd prefer something totally different then the current, past, or perhaps future court system. In my galaxy a court system who's rules are known to all that stand before them. I would prefer a court system where I could not be forced to do anything I choose not to do. To be ordered to pay a fine, or to be stoned to death, I could reject if I believe the seriousness of the crime did not warrant it.
I would rather not put my life, liberty, or property in someone else's hands. I believe there are other punishments that could be leveled that are far more effective then jails and fines. Understand that I'm not saying I don't believe justice should be served, but that what is just to one is different then just to another.
A Christian perhaps would believe that killing someone is wrong, a pagan might say the God(dess) shall choose, a Jew might consider stoning might be in order, a Muslim a beheading, a Buddhist might believe life is its own punishment and reward. My point is that we ought to talk out our differences and if we can't do it then ask for third party help to come to an agreement that fits both parties.
No one should dominate the life, liberty, or property of another without his consent. Perhaps he will agree to be killed, perhaps he will agree to be fined, perhaps he will agree to be a servant of another, or perhaps he will not. It is best to allow those parties figure out what is to be done between then, relying on a third party of their choosing, and accepting of rules that are agreed apon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
zelaya
|
I work as a crime victim advocate employed by a city prosecutor's office (what is most states is called the DA's office). In my opinion, the worse thing to happen to justice are the "rules of evidence" which have evolved out of case law. I am a big defender of the Constitution, but if a police officer violates a suspect's Constitutional rights in obtaining evidence, the officer should be punished, perhaps lose his job if it was intentional, or be subject to a civil suit by the defendant. The evidence should not be excluded from a criminal trial because of technicalities, because this causes the victim, and especially future victims of this offender, to pay the price for a police officer's mistake. I've seen many murderers walk out of the courthouse because the jury was kept in the dark about key evidence. One even laughed in the face of the widow whose husband he shot in the head in front of her and their 4-year-old son during an attempted robbery in a parking lot. And they almost always repeat their crimes. One serial rapist was finally convicted for a brutal rape he committed while out on bond for for another rape, for which he was acquitted (in that case the first jury wasn't allowed to hear that he raped another woman while on bond, and the second jury wasn't allowed to know about the previous rape because he was acquitted, so both saw him as a first-time offender, while we knew he had already raped several women.) If juries got to know all the facts of a case that those of us behind the scenes know, many more guilty people would be convicted and off the street.
As for each of us having a "responsibility" to defend ourselves, that is simply a naive illusion, and unfairly places blame on the victim. Things happen very quickly, in many situations you'd never have a chance to reach for your weapon, or you'd willingly drop it when a gun is pointed at your child's head, for example. I've seen many terrible things and only a few of them could have been prevented by the victim being armed or trained in self-defense. My job has taught me that neither a weapon, nor a locked door, nor a strong man by my side will truly protect me from violence. Distance from the sources of violence is the best protection, for those that can achieve it. The police officers who work in my city almost always live out in the suburbs for this reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CA_Libertarian
|
I've given a lot of thought to this, and realized one key factor in my brother's mindset: he's a Christian.
I don't mean to imply that religion is the cause of his irrationality, but a complicating factor. I think that his belief that 'someone is looking out for the good people' makes him think his system would work out OK. Those that are wrongfully punished would deserve it because they were not 'in God's good graces.'
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
|
|
|
|
CA_Libertarian
|
...In my opinion, the worse thing to happen to justice are the "rules of evidence" which have evolved out of case law. I am a big defender of the Constitution, but if a police officer violates a suspect's Constitutional rights in obtaining evidence, the officer should be punished, perhaps lose his job if it was intentional, or be subject to a civil suit by the defendant. The evidence should not be excluded from a criminal trial because of technicalities, because this causes the victim, and especially future victims of this offender, to pay the price for a police officer's mistake...
Though a bit off-topic, I would like to address this. I agree in principle, but I don't think you offer a practical solution. If we do allow unconstitutionally collected evidence, we open the door for further abuse; we give the LEOs a good reason to violate our rights more than they already do. In a perfect world, the criminal prosecution for those constitutional violations would be a good deterrent. However, reality has shown time and again that LEOs get special treatment in court. Things that would land the average Joe in jail for life are punished with administrative leave or termination. It is very rare that a LEO goes to jail for acts committed 'in the line of duty.' |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
www.pledgebank.com/Next1000The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.~Thomas Paine (1737–1809)
|
|
|
|
NHArticleTen
|
I work as a crime victim advocate employed by a city prosecutor's office (what is most states is called the DA's office). In my opinion, the worse thing to happen to justice are the "rules of evidence" which have evolved out of case law. I am a big defender of the Constitution, but if a police officer violates a suspect's Constitutional rights in obtaining evidence, the officer should be punished, perhaps lose his job if it was intentional, or be subject to a civil suit by the defendant. The evidence should not be excluded from a criminal trial because of technicalities, because this causes the victim, and especially future victims of this offender, to pay the price for a police officer's mistake. I've seen many murderers walk out of the courthouse because the jury was kept in the dark about key evidence. One even laughed in the face of the widow whose husband he shot in the head in front of her and their 4-year-old son during an attempted robbery in a parking lot. And they almost always repeat their crimes. One serial rapist was finally convicted for a brutal rape he committed while out on bond for for another rape, for which he was acquitted (in that case the first jury wasn't allowed to hear that he raped another woman while on bond, and the second jury wasn't allowed to know about the previous rape because he was acquitted, so both saw him as a first-time offender, while we knew he had already raped several women.) If juries got to know all the facts of a case that those of us behind the scenes know, many more guilty people would be convicted and off the street.
As for each of us having a "responsibility" to defend ourselves, that is simply a naive illusion, and unfairly places blame on the victim. Things happen very quickly, in many situations you'd never have a chance to reach for your weapon, or you'd willingly drop it when a gun is pointed at your child's head, for example. I've seen many terrible things and only a few of them could have been prevented by the victim being armed or trained in self-defense. My job has taught me that neither a weapon, nor a locked door, nor a strong man by my side will truly protect me from violence. Distance from the sources of violence is the best protection, for those that can achieve it. The police officers who work in my city almost always live out in the suburbs for this reason.
Rules of Evidence protect us and are very valuable. Without them the jackboots could just go door to door, kicking them in until they found something they chose not to ignore or extort the homeowner for... Even with the Rules of Evidence many abuses occur. You DO have a responsibility to defend yourself(unless you choose to be defenseless or submit) and it is not a naive illusion AT ALL! I have lived for almost half a century maintaining my own defense and security. Yes, life is different for those of us who take this responsibility seriously, but there is no other solution that provides so fully for one's own security and the security of everyone they are around/associated with... Being armed and trained in self-defense is NOT enough! Situational awareness is paramount! Being aware of your surroundings and carrying yourself in a manner which says you aren't going to take anyone's BS is very important also. If you look like an easy mark...then you probably are... I'd like your name, address, phone number, email address, and current photo to put on file so I don't accidentally come to your aid. I would hate to increase your lifespan one second(with erroneous beliefs such as you have elaborated on). And, as always, my superior deadly self defense notice is in full effect. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
J’raxis 270145
|
I work as a crime victim advocate employed by a city prosecutor's office (what is most states is called the DA's office). In my opinion, the worse thing to happen to justice are the "rules of evidence" which have evolved out of case law. I am a big defender of the Constitution, but if a police officer violates a suspect's Constitutional rights in obtaining evidence, the officer should be punished, perhaps lose his job if it was intentional, or be subject to a civil suit by the defendant. The evidence should not be excluded from a criminal trial because of technicalities, because this causes the victim, and especially future victims of this offender, to pay the price for a police officer's mistake. The justification for excluding the evidence is to discourage them from trying to collect evidence in an unconstitutional manner. If they’re only subject to some form of personal punishment, I can imagine some cops violating a suspect’s rights because they think they’re doing it for the greater good, especially in highly emotional cases such as you describe. The point is to make sure there is absolutely no profit whatsoever from unconstitutionally collecting evidence. And if I were one of these victims’ relatives, I wouldn’t be mad at the system for evidence being tossed, I’d be pissed at the idiot cop who failed to follow procedure and rendered the material unusable in court. The cops know—or ought to know—when they’ve abusively gathered evidence, and the blame rests with them for causing it to be excluded. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
lloydbob1
Guest
|
Perhaps you should have your brother 'railroaded' with an ironclad case against him for something he didn't do.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Keyser Soce
|
You should ask your brother how many more innocents being unjustly punished is acceptable. Is there a number or percentage after which it's no longer ok?
He sounds like a law and order type and I would definitely say (having been raised by missionaries) that the religion and the irrationality are linked regardless of which is the cause and which the effect. The bible condones the punishment of the innocent on behalf of the guilty. This is the story of christ and the preceding sacrificial lambs. There is also a verse about children being punished for the sins of the parents.
Regardless, it's all part of the plan and the suffering serves the greater purpose, it's all acording to his will, the trying of your faith yada yada. If it was good enough for Job, it's good enough for you.
I agree with CA, you're probably wasting your time but being he's your brother, I understand it's hard to just give up. I have several siblings that I feel the same way about and here's my strategy. I always refer everything back to the principles of self ownership. Until you can agree on that, there's no use discussing any other subject because even in you agree coincidentally on something, it will be for comepletely different reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
LibertyforLife
|
This is good debate and I am enjoying myself.
My understanding of 'being a victim' comes from my own experiences. I've have my car trespassed into several times, over $1000 worth of my property stolen. I called the cops and filed a report and nothing was done. The lesson I learned was that I am responsible for keeping my property safe.
I've been charged with several 'crimes' such as 'failure to register a vehicle', 'failing to yield', 'excessive travel in center lane', 'driving in excess of the posted speed limit'. These are not crimes. A crime involves one party causing life, liberty, or property to be deminished by another. Instead I was victimized by the government by having my property either 'volentarily' given up to the government or face jail time. What should I have done, shot the judge? The officer? The clerk? While lawfully, I had the right to do so, legally I don't, and in reality I would have drawn down apon me the full force of government.
So I have been victimized. Not in the same way someone who has been raped, or someone who has been murdered, or assaulted. I would fully blame those victims for failing to protect themselves. They have a right to own a firearm and they refused to carry one. I don't own one either, and by doing so I accept that I will become a victim to a superoir force. I know it sounds harsh to the victims but if more victims killed their attackers then there would less attackers and less would-be-attackers. Cases in point would be the UK and Australia where gun ownership has either been eliminated or reduced. If criminals think you can't defend yourself they will attack. Thats why body builders don't get attacked.
Rules of evidence do not in fact protect anyone. They simply reduce the amount of evidence that can be presented. I prefer a system in where there are no limits to collection of evidence so long as they are in accordance to the prinicples of the right to life, liberty, and property. Remember the safe guard of our system is the jury, not the judge, or evidence. However the judges have violated the law(as apposed to statute which of course allow them to be criminals in their own right) and tell the jury that they only get to decide the guilt a party and not the law itself.
I've fought in court to try to get a jury trial but the judge always brings in that the state's constitution limits jury trials to $250 in direct conflict to the US Constitution which states $50. All of my experience hath taught me that government doesn't protect anyone and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I feel we are now at that point. I would rather we use non-violence to solve the problem by simply refusing to comply with the orders and instructions of the government and found a new government that would be more inline to support the idea of liberty.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Live free or die!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
