On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:32:09 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course. The current American Injustice System (AIS) is theantithisis of a fair trial with a jury reaching a fair, just andinformed decision. The lieyers, inlduging the judgy, work to obstructjustice and prevent the jury from being informed of the facts of the case.

I hope everyone will spend some time at the web companion site to
tonight's Frontline show, "The Plea".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/

Here is a section from an interview with Yale law professor, John
Langbein:

*Many say we have the best justice system in the world.
*
*No knowledgeable student of comparative criminal justice is likely to
fall victim to the notion that ours is an admirable system.
*
*It is an appalling system. We have ten times as large a percent of
our population locked up in jail by comparison with the European
countries. We have sentences which are draconian. We've just had a 12
year-old put in jail for life in Florida. Things of this sort are
unheard of in the rest of the world. There are many causes, but the
failure of our adversary system is central, and the political nature
of our prosecutorial system is also central.

RHR wrote: On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:32:09 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Of course. The current American Injustice System (AIS) is theantithisis of a fair trial with a jury reaching a fair, just andinformed decision. The lieyers, inlduging the judgy, work to obstructjustice and prevent the jury from being informed of the facts of the case. I hope everyone will spend some time at the web companion site to tonight's Frontline show, "The Plea". http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/ Here is a section from an interview with Yale law professor, John Langbein: *Many say we have the best justice system in the world.

Many lieyers he means. What do you expect a lieyer to say?

*No knowledgeable student of comparative criminal justice is likely to fall victim to the notion that ours is an admirable system. *

Indeed, the AIS is so bad it would be hard to invent one worse.

*It is an appalling system. We have ten times as large a percent of our population locked up in jail by comparison with the European countries. We have sentences which are draconian. We've just had a 12 year-old put in jail for life in Florida. Things of this sort are unheard of in the rest of the world. There are many causes, but the failure of our adversary system is central, and the political nature of our prosecutorial system is also central.


The USA now has more men in prisons than any other country at any other
time in the history of the world.

2 million is 2 many.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:30:06 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:

So you're "Bob" too. Nice name, eh. The name "Bob" has always been
associated with people of high intelligence, and from what I have seen
of your analysis of the injustice system, you are being true to your
name.
Indeed, the AIS is so bad it would be hard to invent one worse.

Take a close look at the system in Britain.

* If a defendant keeps quiet for fear of self incrimination, the jury
is told that it is a sign of guilt.

* Juries can return so-called "majority verdicts", which means a
defendant can be convicted with as few as 10 votes from the jury.
Forget about being innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable
doubt. If 2 jurors have reasonable doubt, you are still guilty.

* Persecutors can withhold exculpatory evidence with impunity.
The USA now has more men in prisons than any other country at any othertime in the history of the world.2 million is 2 many.

We all know the reason for that - the so-called "War On Drugs".

Just as Alcohol Prohibition was all about enriching the coffers of the
criminal ruling class - including those in govt - the same is true for
the "Drug Prohibition".

The clandestine agencies like the CIA cannot ask Congress to fund
their covert operations because that would expose what they are up to
- special interest business espionage. So they have to get their
funding the old fashioned way - criminal activity.

To keep Drug Prohibition profitable, the govt has to prevent
competition before it gets too large. If the competition gets too
large, it will cost too much to enforce - and that will cause the
collapse of the system. That's the real reason slavery ended and it is
the real reason Alcohol Prohibition ended - it cost too much to
enforce(*).

Therefore the govt commissions an "enforcement" agency - just like in
any criminal organization. It is the responsibility of this "Drug
Enforcement Agency" to prevent excess competition by putting the
competition in prison. Thus far the govt has done a very effective job
of it. However, as you point out, the system is being strained.

Just like with slavery and alcohol prohibition, this criminal system
will collapse from its own deadweight burden. All it has to do is
reach critical mass.

--
(*) No, Virginia - Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation
Proclamation only applied to the slaves in the "rebel territories".
The slaves in the CSA (Confederate States of America) were freed
several months *before* the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. The
slaves in the Union (yes, there were slaves in the Union during the
War of Northern Aggression) were not freed until passage of the 13th
Amendment, well after the end of the War.

--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Government is the people's business and every man, woman and
child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid."
--Ronald Reagan

Bob wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:30:06 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Take a close look at the system in Britain.* Juries can return so-called "majority verdicts", which means adefendant can be convicted with as few as 10 votes from the jury.Forget about being innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonabledoubt. If 2 jurors have reasonable doubt, you are still guilty.
The same is true under the US constitution according to the US Supreme
Court, and a few states have chosen to use majority jury verdicts in
criminal cases. Actually an open question is if 9 to 3 verdicts are
Constitutional : the Supreme Court has ruled that 8 to 4 verdicts are
Unconstitutional, while 10 to 2 verdicts are Constitutional in criminal
cases.

In article <%BFAc.39828$4S4.17959@fe34.usenetserver.com>,
tsa@biostat.wisc.edu says... Bob wrote:On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:30:06 -0600, Bob <boby23456@hotmail.com> wrote:Take a close look at the system in Britain.* Juries can return so-called "majority verdicts", which means adefendant can be convicted with as few as 10 votes from the jury.Forget about being innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonabledoubt. If 2 jurors have reasonable doubt, you are still guilty. The same is true under the US constitution according to the US Supreme Court, and a few states have chosen to use majority jury verdicts in criminal cases. Actually an open question is if 9 to 3 verdicts are Constitutional : the Supreme Court has ruled that 8 to 4 verdicts are Unconstitutional, while 10 to 2 verdicts are Constitutional in criminal cases. Only in minor and civil matters...otherwise they have to reach a unanimous
verdict.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/resources/jury_article.html "they must reach guilty verdicts unanimously, but in more than a third
of the states, only an extraordinary majority is needed to render a
verdict in civil and minor criminal cases [for exceptions, see Key Jury
Supreme Court Cases]. If the jurors cannot agree on a verdict, a “hung
jury” occurs, and a new trial is held, or the case may be dismissed."

http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/juryuna.html
In civil cases in California courts, a jury can render a verdict if
3/4ths of the jurors agree. In both felony and misdemeanor criminal
cases, however, the jury must be unanimous. If the jury cannot reach a
unanimous verdict, it is said to be "hung," and the case is dismissed,
leaving the prosecutor free to try the case again, if he or she decides
that the chance of a conviction warrants the expense of a retrial.

In article <40d2fbdc.63761544@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob <spam@spam.com> wrote:
(*) No, Virginia - Lincoln did not free the slaves. The EmancipationProclamation only applied to the slaves in the "rebel territories".The slaves in the CSA (Confederate States of America) were freedseveral months *before* the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. Theslaves in the Union (yes, there were slaves in the Union during theWar of Northern Aggression) were not freed until passage of the 13thAmendment, well after the end of the War.

Lincoln didn't have the legal authority to free the slaves in the Union.

On 18 Jun 2004 21:11:05 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
(*) No, Virginia - Lincoln did not free the slaves. The EmancipationProclamation only applied to the slaves in the "rebel territories".The slaves in the CSA (Confederate States of America) were freedseveral months *before* the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. Theslaves in the Union (yes, there were slaves in the Union during theWar of Northern Aggression) were not freed until passage of the 13thAmendment, well after the end of the War.
Lincoln didn't have the legal authority to free the slaves in the Union.

Lincoln had taken control of Congress - he could have done whatever he
wanted legislatively. But he did not want the slaves to be freed.

He forced California to repeal its (earlier) version of the
Emancipation Proclamation. Furthermore, he would not allow repeal of
the Fugitive Slave Act.

He was not any "great emancipator". That has to be the biggest lie
ever to be brainwashed into the minds of the entire world.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"Government is the people's business and every man, woman and
child becomes a shareholder with the first penny of tax paid."
--Ronald Reagan

In article <40d3aad4.108553161@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Bob from Texas <spam@spam.com> wrote:On 18 Jun 2004 21:11:05 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:(*) No, Virginia - Lincoln did not free the slaves. The EmancipationProclamation only applied to the slaves in the "rebel territories".The slaves in the CSA (Confederate States of America) were freedseveral months *before* the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. Theslaves in the Union (yes, there were slaves in the Union during theWar of Northern Aggression) were not freed until passage of the 13thAmendment, well after the end of the War.

The 13th Amendment was passed before the end of the war. It was ratified
by the states after the war ended, but in the same year.
Lincoln didn't have the legal authority to free the slaves in the Union.Lincoln had taken control of Congress - he could have done whatever hewanted legislatively.

Lincoln had "taken control" of the Congress? Explain what
you mean by this.

On 20 Jun 2004 11:57:42 -0400, tjab@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
The 13th Amendment was passed before the end of the war. It was ratifiedby the states after the war ended, but in the same year.

Thanks you for that heads up.
Lincoln had "taken control" of the Congress? Explain whatyou mean by this.

For a concise accurate explanation I recommend you read Jeffrey
Hummel's masterpiece "Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men".

IIRC according to Hummel, Lincoln literally took control of Congress.
He told Congress what to do and if anyone failed to carry out his
dictates he would imprison them.


--

Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed
enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much."
--Ronald Reagan