http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061223/NEWSREC010201/612230303/1014

Nifong dropped charges of first-degree forcible rape against David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. His action came one week after the head of a DNA lab testified during a court hearing that he and Nifong agreed not to report test results that found no genetic material belonging to the three defendants on the alleged victim.

Just another example of why lawyers and judges should be held accountable for their actions.

He should be fired, immediately. And charged with obstruction of justice(and one could argue kidnapping, false imprisonment, and assault). With a penalty no less than the one he sought, 25 years in prison.

And you wonder why we oppose the death penalty, courthouse lawn executions, and all that other libertarian crap.

Very few DAs actually perform their ethical duty of bringing forth evidence favorable to the accused. They mostly think they're advocates for punishment, i.e., a polar opposite to the defense attorney.

Sometimes the bias comes out immediately, as here, sometimes it's years later, and often, it's never.

And you wonder why we oppose the death penalty, courthouse lawn executions, and all that other libertarian crap.
To be fair, I don't think Fyyr is representative of the Libertarian viewpoint. Although there is debate about it within the party, every Libertarian I've met or debated with has strongly opposed the death penalty on the grounds that it puts too much power in the hands of the state.

http://libertarianwiki.org/Death_Penalty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_the_death_penalty

This is the Libertarian Viewpoint of Violent Crime, take it for what you want.

From section three of Briefing Paper - Libertarian Party Program On Crime (http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss-bp.shtml)(That's from the Libertarian Party's Website BTW.)

In part because of the diversion of resources to fight victimless crime (see above), real criminals increasingly escape punishment. As Figure 2. shows, the cost a criminal can expect to pay for committing a crime has declined for 20 years, while crime rates have steadily increased.

The Libertarian Party believes that individuals should be held responsible for their actions. This includes swift and certain punishment for those guilty of committing violence or fraud against others.

But today, criminal sentences seldom mean what they say. On average, a criminal will serve only 37% of any sentence imposed. As a result, 51% of all violent offenders are released from jail after serving two years or less, and 76% were released after serving four years or less.

When a Judge imposes a sentence, the criminal should serve that sentence. Parole and other forms of early release should be severely restricted. Virtually every study on the subject has shown that parolees have a high recidivism rate. For example, one 1987 study found that 69% of parolees were rearrested within six years of their release.

One deeply disturbing trend is the increasing tendency to excuse individuals from responsibility for the crimes they commit. From the "Twinkie defense" to the Menendez and Bobbitt trials, juries have been too willing to excuse a defendant's guilt. Insanity and diminished capacity defenses should be abolished or severely restricted.

The insanity defense can be replaced by a plea of "guilty but mentally ill," which would enable the offender to receive medical help, but would still require him to serve the appropriate sentence for his crime. The use of alcohol or drugs should never constitute an excuse for criminal conduct. The juvenile justice system should be radically revised to ensure that juveniles are held fully accountable for the crimes they commit. Juveniles commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. From 1982-1991, the number of juveniles arrested for murder or manslaughter increased by 93%. In 1990, individuals under the age of 21 were responsible for one-third of all murders. Yet, only 5% of violent juvenile offenders are tried as adults. In some states a juvenile offender cannot be sentenced to serve a term past the age of 25 -- no matter how serious the offense. Juveniles who commit adult crimes should be tried as adults and pay adult penalties.


/chuckles

...every Libertarian I've met or debated with has strongly opposed the death penalty on the grounds that it puts too much power in the hands of the state.

True, very.

And most are vehemently anti war, as well.

Most Libertarians are exile-ists by principle. In that they should be put on some island, or in some enclosed space in the desert. And that they should be allowed, while in that exile, or prison, to be able to produce products or services, which goes to pay for their keep.

Business interests in the 1800s, in California, makes it illegal to have prisoners make stuff that can turn a profit.

And insanity or diminished capacity attenuation of punishment is a joke, and should be repealed, asap. While they should be treated in prison for their sickness, it should not mitigate the crime, or lower the punishment of time.

And insanity or diminished capacity attenuation of punishment is a joke, and should be repealed, asap. While they should be treated in prison for their sickness, it should not mitigate the crime, or lower the punishment of time.I see. So if you're down at the shooting range preparing for the libertarian uprising, but suddenly have a seizure and unintentionally shoot your libertarian buddy next to you in the head, you should be guilty of what, murder?Most Libertarians are exile-ists by principle. In that they should be put on some island, or in some enclosed space in the desert. And that they should be allowed, while in that exile, or prison, to be able to produce products or services, which goes to pay for their keep.Ironic. You probably wouldn't survive a week without all the benefits you now get from society (guns, food, water, shelter, etc.).

I guess it's easy to be a libertarian, so long as you simultaneously have all of the advantages that non-libertarians have while having none of the libertarian burdens.

You probably wouldn't survive a week without all the benefits you now get from society (guns, food, water, shelter, etc.).
I don't get those benefits from society, you commie freak. I earned them myself.

And I make my own ammo, too.

I guess it's easy to be a libertarian, so long as you simultaneously have all of the advantages that non-libertarians have while having none of the libertarian burdens.
You think weird.

I see. So if you're down at the shooting range preparing for the libertarian uprising, but suddenly have a seizure and unintentionally shoot your libertarian buddy next to you in the head, you should be guilty of what, murder?
That is stupid.

Actually my real concern is that Khan is going to put one of those worm things in my ear, and control me, and make me kill people against my will.

That is stupid.Only because your position forces it to be so.

Insanity, like all diminished capacity defenses, is based on the idea that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong, so you couldn't form the intent necessary to commit the crime.

We may debate where the line of insanity is, such that a person has reached that point, but once he does, he shouldn't be treated as a murderer just because he kills. He should be treated as a mentally ill patient.

You would only look at the action, and ignore what was going the person's mind. A purely harm-based penal system. Well then, what is difference in that system between an accidental or involuntary killing, and premeditated murder?I don't get those benefits from society, you commie freak. I earned them myself.No, society gave them to you. Society is what gives you the possibility of "earning" goods, which is really just an exchange of resources among its members.

If our society were composed of libertarians who want to live alone in the desert, guess what, there would be no society to give you all those benefits, or making earning possible. That also includes all the raw materials you use to make your ammo, unless you're making bows and arrows out of sticks.

You'd just be a bunch of guys, each in his own desert, fending for himself and desperately looking for food armed with wooden spears, never amounting to anything because you never share resources, as we normal people do.

The limits of your imagination are only outmatched by the limits of your critical thinking.

Ok, that's convincing.

Your system of government sounds insane, which is probably why it only exists in theory books.

Of course it is to you,

...having the least amount of governmental force on people that is possible, and the most individual freedom, sounds insane.

But coming from a liberal authoritarian/fascist, that is quite a compliment.

I am quite sure, that if Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry were alive today, they would load up a flintlock pistol and shoot people like you in the face with a 50 caliber lead ball.

Ben Franklin would just grease up his dick with Crisco, and bend you over in the light of the moon. That is for sure. And he was a pacifist.

That's your opinion.

But I don't recall any of those people living alone, in the desert, rejecting all government. Quite the contrary.

Of course it is my opinion.

If it were yours, you would have said it.

You like force. You like the government forcing people to do what you want them to do, against individuals and their freedoms.

Of course it was my opinion, why would I say, or espouse, someone else's?

The only ones who should be living in the desert, are those who want to do so. And convicts, in some new age Libertarian Freedom Farm.

I have no idea what the other crap you spewing, I really don't.

And you wonder why we oppose the death penalty, courthouse lawn executions, and all that other libertarian crap.

Very few DAs actually perform their ethical duty of bringing forth evidence favorable to the accused. They mostly think they're advocates for punishment, i.e., a polar opposite to the defense attorney.

Sometimes the bias comes out immediately, as here, sometimes it's years later, and often, it's never.

This guy has gone beyond the pale, though.

And prosecutors are supposed to prosecute based on the evidence...not in spite of.

He has not, however, dropped all of the charges, even yet.

They should all be dropped and his office should be investigated. If evidence arises that his decision to keep the case going this long, in spite of the lack of evidence, was political in nature (which it is), then he should be removed from office and prosecuted under whatever applicable laws can be found.

This is the Libertarian Viewpoint of Violent Crime, take it for what you want.

From section three of Briefing Paper - Libertarian Party Program On Crime (http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss-bp.shtml)(That's from the Libertarian Party's Website BTW.)



/chuckles

Just another example of why, despite my libertarian leanings, I can never be part of the libertarian party.

Insanity and diminished capacity affirmative defenses are already very limited.

And juveniles should never, ever, under any circumstance, be tried as an adult. If you want a 16 year old to be held to the same criminal standards as an adult, then you have to give 16 year olds the same rights and privledges as an adult.

If a child isn't mature enough to vote, drive, decide to smoke, or drink, then he isn't mature enough to be held fully accountable for his criminal actions.

Society must choose which it finds more important.

True, very.

And most are vehemently anti war, as well.

Most Libertarians are exile-ists by principle. In that they should be put on some island, or in some enclosed space in the desert. And that they should be allowed, while in that exile, or prison, to be able to produce products or services, which goes to pay for their keep.

Business interests in the 1800s, in California, makes it illegal to have prisoners make stuff that can turn a profit.

And insanity or diminished capacity attenuation of punishment is a joke, and should be repealed, asap. While they should be treated in prison for their sickness, it should not mitigate the crime, or lower the punishment of time.

A fundamental aspect of our criminal justice system is intent. Insanity and/or diminished capacity are difficult defenses and generally only those who truly were insane successfully use that affirmative defense.

If you were truly unable to control yourself due to mental issues, or mentally incapable of understanding the consequences of your actions, you should not be punished as a criminal. To punish such people is nothing more than vengence..and the State does not have the power to enact vengence on its citizens.

Such people should be institutionalized until such time as they become mentally healthy, at which point, they should be released.

Again, small minded people seek to empower the state at the expense of the citizenry, in order to stop the very rare instance where insansity defenses have been successfully abused.

That is stupid.

Actually my real concern is that Khan is going to put one of those worm things in my ear, and control me, and make me kill people against my will.

Let us be perfectly clear.

Just because you don't believe mental illness can compel people to do horrible things, does not make it untrue.

There are people who legtimately may think (for instance) that their neighbor or wife is slowly poisoning them...who have gone to the police who did nothing (because there was nothing to do...), who feel the only way to survive is to kill. It is sad...and should be treated, not punished.

Of course it is to you,

...having the least amount of governmental force on people that is possible, and the most individual freedom, sounds insane.

But coming from a liberal authoritarian/fascist, that is quite a compliment.

I am quite sure, that if Thomas Jefferson, or Patrick Henry were alive today, they would load up a flintlock pistol and shoot people like you in the face with a 50 caliber lead ball.

Ben Franklin would just grease up his dick with Crisco, and bend you over in the light of the moon. That is for sure. And he was a pacifist.

They would also consider you to be a dangerous person who should probably be kicked out of the country, to be fair, Fy'yr ;)

I'm the only person on the board they would agree with....they'd invite me to their homes to drink and play cards and offer to share their wives with me. They would have invited me to draft the constitution with Mr. Madison, who would have asked my advice nightly.

small minded people seek to empower the state at the expense of the citizenry

The mentally ill(and especially the criminally mentally ill) and those who are criminals do not comprise, or should not comprise the citizenry.

The mentally ill(and especially the criminally mentally ill) and those who are criminals do not comprise, or should not comprise the citizenry.

Unfortunately for your Aryan eugenic, "we must eliminate all ze inferiors" mindset, the Founders did not stipulate that citzenship did not include those found mentally ill or inferior.

The concept of insanity or mental defects as an affirmative defense has been part of the common law legal system since around the 14th century, back in england..

It is patently immoral to hold a person accountable for actions which he could not control or actions which he could not understand the consequences of taking, due to mental illness. Being a paranoid schizophrenic, or suffering from a severe bi-polar disorder, or suffering from MPD, should not be cause for a life in prison.

If you cannot form the intent which is a fundamental aspect of our judicial system...then you cannot be guilty of the crime.

The mentally ill(and especially the criminally mentally ill) and those who are criminals do not comprise, or should not comprise the citizenry.Or the sick. Or the disabled. Or the genetically impure.

Wait, this sounds familiar.

Political views are funny, the more extreme you get, the more polar opposites begin to sound like they're in agreement.

Ooh, I'm afeared now.

Tudamorf is calling me a NAZI.

People might not like me if they think I am a NAZI. Especially Enlightened Politically Correct Liberal Guilt Pardoners. And I really care about what those people think of me, because I should.

If you honestly think that the mentally ill and criminals should have the same rights that you have as a citizen, what a certainly absolutely moronic idea. Just because you are afraid that one of your Liberal friends might call YOU a NAZI; ok, maybe not a moron, but certainly a coward.

And they won't like you any more, or maybe even kick you out of San Francisco.

Unfortunately for your Aryan eugenic, "we must eliminate all ze inferiors" mindset, the Founders did not stipulate that citzenship did not include those found mentally ill or inferior.


Ya, they just had to be male and own real estate.

Aidon, Aidon, Aidon, I would have thought more of you as well.

Of all people, you too are calling me a NAZI? That's rich.



You really need to work on your rhetoric, for now you have to defend the notion that the mentally insane should be allowed to vote and own guns. Something that, here, even in Liberal California, is not allowed. But that may be because we here in California are in the process of removing that right from everyone.

Kalifornia Über Alles!

If you honestly think that the mentally ill and criminals should have the same rights that you have as a citizen, what a certainly absolutely moronic idea.Why?

You get a speeding ticket. You are now a criminal.

Or you suffer from depression. You are clinically mentally ill.

Should your rights be taken away from you, in either instance?

I agree that in some cases, where a criminal or seriously mentally ill person poses a serious threat to society, some of their rights have to be curtailed for the protection of the other members of society. But those instances don't conform to your neat little categories, which, conveniently, expand your rights at the cost of others' rights.

I thought that you did not like slippery slopes, Tudamorf.

Ya, I can see your hesitancy to the notion if you honestly equate someone shooting at you with going to fast.

So you think it is a good idea that I can't own a firearm, but a paranoid schizophrenic should. Gotcha.

Right on, right on.

I thought that you did not like slippery slopes, Tudamorf.What slippery slope? You said criminals shouldn't have the same rights as non-criminals. I'm just applying your ill-conceived rule to point out its stupidity.Ya, I can see your hesitancy to the notion if you honestly equate someone shooting at you with going to fast.I don't, but you apparently do. Or maybe you're backtracking, and admitting your "criminals shouldn't have rights" comment was just a brain fart, in which case, we're making progress.So you think it is a good idea that I can't own a firearm, but a paranoid schizophrenic should. Gotcha.A criminal or mentally ill person has no more right than you to own a firearm.

Where in the law does it say that a criminal can own a firearm, but a non-criminal can't? Show me. I doubt you'll find it.

Or maybe you're backtracking, and admitting your "criminals shouldn't have rights" comment was just a brain fart

They should NOT have the same rights that citizens have.

That is absolutely stupid, how else are you ever going to put any of them in jail. The state is taking their right of liberty away from them, to put them in prison.

This whole conversation is absolutely absurd.

A criminal or mentally ill person has no more right than you to own a firearm.
They shouldn't be allowed to own one at all.

And for the most part they are disallowed from buying them, of course. By law, but apparently a law(or set of them) which you don't support.

Where in the law does it say that a criminal can own a firearm, but a non-criminal can't? Show me. I doubt you'll find it.
That is your contradiction not mine.
In one thread you support the notion that firearms should not be owned by citizens.
You are the one who appears to be saying that criminals should be allowed to own them. That they deserve the same rights as non criminal citizens.



They should not be allowed to vote either, duh.
Maybe that is too difficult a concept for you to grasp, I literally am thinking about editing this last part out, so as to not completely confuse you.

Your whole notion that criminals deserve the same rights as citizens is absolutely retarded. It is completely out of the realm of reason.

Let me start again, slowly.

A speeder is a criminal. A serial murderer is a criminal.

You say, criminals, without exception, shouldn't have the same rights as non-criminals, and shouldn't be considered citizens. So you say, the speeder shouldn't be a citizen, just as the serial murderer shouldn't be a citizen.

I say, no, it depends on the criminal. Only dangerous criminals should have their rights limited, e.g., by incarceration. We don't incarcerate speeders. We also shouldn't. They're not dangerous. We do incarcerate serial murderers, because they are dangerous.

Therefore, your blanket statement that criminals shouldn't have the same rights as non-criminals, and should not be citizens, is invalid.

YOU say without exception.

Not I.

There are a ton of exceptions, why the fvck would there not be exceptions?

For example, 48 percent of the prison population is made up of people in there on drug related offenses(crimes). And none of them should be, rather those that are merely drug crimes should not be.

If some brother is in jail just for selling drugs, he is no different than Merck or Phizer, and should be exonerated.

No one should be in jail or punished for solicitation or prostitution crimes either.

Pimping out your 9 year old daughter and holding her down while the criminal rapes her, would be an exception to that.

Your 'slowly part' at the beginning is unacceptable defining to me. I don't agree to those terms, for they are inaccurate.

Well then I just misunderstood what you said. I guess there's no argument -- this time.

Ooh, I'm afeared now.

Tudamorf is calling me a NAZI.

People might not like me if they think I am a NAZI. Especially Enlightened Politically Correct Liberal Guilt Pardoners. And I really care about what those people think of me, because I should.

If you honestly think that the mentally ill and criminals should have the same rights that you have as a citizen, what a certainly absolutely moronic idea. Just because you are afraid that one of your Liberal friends might call YOU a NAZI; ok, maybe not a moron, but certainly a coward.

And they won't like you any more, or maybe even kick you out of San Francisco.

It is downright evil to deny rights to people due to mental illness. It denotes a callous and wicked mind.

And criminals should have the same rights as everyone else, once they've served their sentence. This notion of felons being forever branded and literally treated as second class citizens is bull****..and even moreso now that felonies include such heinous crimes as drug possession, trying to run away from Cops who are beating you, refusing to answer police questions, and driving under the influence.

If a person is free to rejoin society...having served a reasonable and equitable sentence for his crime, then there is no reason why his rights should be in any way diminished.

Of course, I fully realize that you didn't mean convicted criminals...you meant any person you deem is a criminal without even a trial.

You are exactly why our constitution and judicial system was created in the manner it was...to protect people from the likes of you.

Ya, they just had to be male and own real estate.

Aidon, Aidon, Aidon, I would have thought more of you as well.

Of all people, you too are calling me a NAZI? That's rich.



You really need to work on your rhetoric, for now you have to defend the notion that the mentally insane should be allowed to vote and own guns. Something that, here, even in Liberal California, is not allowed. But that may be because we here in California are in the process of removing that right from everyone.

Kalifornia Über Alles!

The mentally ill should be permitted to vote. Mental illness does not denote an inability to understand issues, necessarily, indeed, by your standard I can assure you, very people would be permitted to vote, since most people could be diagnosed with something out of the DSM-IV (or it is up to DSM-V yet?).

If a person is legally considered an adult and can manage to fill out a ballot (or have help filling out a ballot...or even are capable of telling a poll worker who they wish to vote for, if they can't read the ballot themselves), they should be permitted to vote.

As for owning guns...the current standard of "involuntarily committed", is sufficient (and I would suggest perhaps too stringent...). The potential for a person to be dangerous with a firearm is insufficient cause to restrict their right to own one.

I thought we had agreed that punishing people because they have the possibility of doing something dangerous, was bad?

edit: For reasons I cannot fathom, it does not want to put the text of Fy'yr's post in the quote...it was his "Kalifornia Uber Alles" post ;)

You have not been around the mentally ill have you?

That **** is just crazy or ignorant.

And I suppose that it is good that the Law disagrees with you. In California, anyone who has had a 5150 can't legally buy or own a firearm. And that is one form of gun control, I completely agree with. That is good and reasonable.

Some mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or own guns. Not all. Qualify your conclusions.

I have intentionally stopped qualifying and adding little disclaimers to my statements whenever possible, for quite some time now.

I assume that those listening to me, or reading me, have the mental cognition and intellect to realize that already.

It is tiresome and tedious, except in these certain cases, to have to denote obvious exceptions to everything stated, albeit one must assume that the other people are intelligent enough to understand the different between point addressed and their known and obvious exceptions.

And it is all superfluous, for the most part.

And I will add this disclaimer for every future statement I make, here for your edification:
There is an exception to every generality, except this one.

It is tiresome and tedious, except in these certain cases, to have to denote obvious exceptions to everything stated,Actually, the thrust of the argument is often which "certain cases" are exceptions.

If you think 99 out of 100 people with a diagnosed mental illness shouldn't be allowed to vote, but I think only 1 out of 100 shouldn't be allowed to vote, we have a big difference of opinion, although we accept the same general rule.

Exceptions aren't obvious, even if you think they are.

Every person who has thought of himself as god or jesus or mary.
Every person who has thought of a family member as god or jesus or mary.
Every person who has seen the devil in person, or demons.
Every person who is otherwise religiously fixated.
Every person who is paranoid psychotic.
Every person who is paranoid schizophrenic.
Every person who has murder or suicide ideation.
Every person who has delusional paranoid ideation.
Every person who 'hears voices'.
Every person who is clinically 'sexually inappropriate.'

That is just the/a short list.

And no, I do not think that a person suffering from clinical depression should be going down to Crosshairs Guns and Ammo and buying a gun. Emphatically not a good idea!

Your list is only a tiny percentage of people that have a diagnosable mental illness. You work in a hospital, so no doubt you often see the extreme cases, but they're the ultra-rare exception. Like, probably less than 0.01%.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm#IntroMental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.Do you think 1 in 4 people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or should have fewer rights than you have? People who, for the most part, can think rationally and function in society?

I'm sure even Aidon would agree that a delusional, violent schizophrenic ranting about how god is telling him to kill the sinners shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns. But that's a far cry from your blanket "mentally ill shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns" statement.

Do you think 1 in 4 people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or should have fewer rights than you have? People who, for the most part, can think rationally and function in society?

This is all relatively a moot point of course, and hypothetical. Mentally ill people do not go out and vote anyways.

Less than 1 in 4 people vote.

But as a matter of principle, I do think that citizenship should be earned, and not given away just by a geographical accident of birth. Or even intention, we had a Mexican patient who would come up from Mexico every time to give birth, then go back with her new dual citizenshipped baby.

Minimally, people should have to pass the equivalent of the Naturalization and Citizenship Test, in order to be a full citizen with full voting rights.

Sample U.S. Citizenship Test questions:

1. How many stars are there in our flag?
2. How many states are there in the Union?
3. What color are the stars on our flag?
4. What do the stars on the flag mean?
5. How many stripes are there in the flag?
6. What date is the Day of Independence?
7. Independence from whom?
8. What country did we fight during the revolutionary war?
9. Who was the first president of the United States?
10. What do we call a change of the constitution?
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/citizenship_test.html

I would include knowing what the capital cities of all of the states are, as well as what the Bill of Rights are(not memorized, just what they are). And the Preamble of the Constitution(memorized) and first 5 presidents and last 5 presidents.

But that's a far cry from your blanket "mentally ill shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns" statement.
You assumed there was a blanket.

And any legitimate or reasonable exceptions could/should be accounted for. I think that is reasonable.



And there is a fifth thought which is underlying this/my discussion, one that may emerge when the time is right, or when it becomes self evident. And if not, oh well, nothing lost.

But as a matter of principle, I do think that citizenship should be earned, and not given away just by a geographical accident of birth.Then you create the risk that huge numbers of people will be citizens of nowhere. Where do they go? Are we going to just ship them to Texas for execution, or what?Minimally, people should have to pass the equivalent of the Naturalization and Citizenship Test, in order to be a full citizen with full voting rights.What does knowing the capital city of Kentucky have to do with being a citizen?

You might as well base citizenship on some other arbitrary criterion, such as knowing the difference between the Capitol and a capital.

Capitol is the building in the city, capital is the city.

There I fixed it.

Then you create the risk that huge numbers of people will be citizens of nowhere. Where do they go? Are we going to just ship them to Texas for execution, or what?What does knowing the capital city of Kentucky have to do with being a citizen?
What a weird flight of fancy that is.

You might as well base citizenship on some other arbitrary criterion, such as knowing the difference between the Capitol and a capital.
Good idea.

How about 2 years public or military service?

But that's not really arbitrary, that is tangibly a great idea. Dang.

You haven't answered the two major questions: (1) who gets to decide who becomes a citizen and (2) what do we do with the people who are unable or unwilling to become citizens.

You haven't answered the two major questions: (1) who gets to decide who becomes a citizen and (2) what do we do with the people who are unable or unwilling to become citizens.

1. We do. Who else should?
2. Don't let them vote, certainly.

If YOU want to round them up in concentration camps, you are going to have convince us, that that is a good idea. I don't think it is, of course.

I am perfectly willing to let the mentally retarded, the mentally ill(the 5150 types), and criminals to just not be able to vote. And unless you fear some slippery slope, then it should end just there. I would be happy with that, it is reasonable.

I am sure that you will try to convince me now that Democracy is better for everyone that they do get to vote, or should vote. Go for it.

1. We do. Who else should?Who is "we"? Is the country going to have a vote on the issue, or is some elected official going to decide, unilaterally? More importantly, who's going to protect the minorities, who will be screwed in the process? The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at your suggestion.2. Don't let them vote, certainly.So are they citizens or not? Citizenship is more than just voting rights. It's the right to be here, among other things.

Who is "we"? Is the country going to have a vote on the issue, or is some elected official going to decide, unilaterally? More importantly, who's going to protect the minorities, who will be screwed in the process?
We are we. We should decide it.

Ya, we really should have National and Federal Referendum, absolutely. If we have an educated(to the issues) electorate, they should directly be able to make true Democratic laws. The only reasons why it was not feasible, 200 years ago, was because they lacked the technology, and the fear of a stupid electorate.

The first reason is already relatively solved.

And my 'system' solves the second.

The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at your suggestion.So are they citizens or not?
No they wouldn't. They agonized over this very issue, and decided on something more draconian and arbitrary, than what I am suggesting. They did not want everyone voting, that is most certain. WHO, those people are, are for us to decide.

Just because you can't figure out who should not vote, does not mean that everyone should vote. The whole system was set up to prevent stupid people from making laws, and still be a Democracy. My idea is even more Democratic, than we have it now.

Citizenship is more than just voting rights. It's the right to be here, among other things.
Why would you make them go anywhere?

I don't think that mere accidental birth, as cheap and easy as that is, should be the only requirement for citizenship. I think it should be earned, and able to be earned.

For the alternative is, that citizenship(in terms of voting, especially), for any individual, is completely meaningless. And that is the way that it is today, voting is completely meaningless and a waste of time. When someone who takes the time to learn about the system, and the issues, and their vote is cancelled out by someone who has no idea, nor no vested interest in the outcome...it makes the system a joke. Which it is, of course.

Besides my 'system' would probably engage as many voters as it loses. For anyone who can pass the 8th grade should be able to pass a basic Citizenship Test. Currently, there are many better informed high schoolers now who should be allowed to vote and be full citizens, than many of the current voting population.

What is more arbitrary than accidental geographical birth location or turning 18? Those mere litmus tests are more arbitrary than with my system, and wholey irresponsible.

And you don't see people rounding up 16 and 17 year olds now, and railcar-ing them to Texas. They don't have full citizenship rights, and nothing endemically or systemically bad occurs to them. I mean, other than not being able to vote, when they might otherwise be vested and engaged in the process. We already don't let convicted felons vote, and I don't see anyone bussing them to concentration camps outside Austin. Your worst case gestapo scenario is just a flight of fancy, scare tactic if not a slippery slope tactic.

Additionally, with only minor restraint...People who come up here to work, the poor farmworkers, restroom cleaners at WalMart(you know the poor people you care about), they too would get an equal shot at being citizens. Those people should be here. We got room, we need the work done. Make them citizens, if they want to be citizens. Just because your parents fvcked in the USA, does not inherently make you better or more deserving than someone whose parents fvcked in Mexico, Viet Nam, China, or Russia.

For all I know, you might be a 3rd generation whitetrash welfare deadbeat dad. I highly doubt it, though.

No, if you want to send 3rd generation welfare moms to Mexico in exchange for farmworkers, and bums and convicts to the Philipines in exchange for nurses, you are going to have to convince us(and those respective countries) of that at a later time that that is a great idea. That notion is completely unreasonable, at this time.

We are we. We should decide it.We being, a 50% + 1 special vote? Or what?Why would you make them go anywhere?Because if you're not a citizen, and don't have some sort of special permission to be here, it is illegal for you to be in the United States, and you will be deported.

The unfettered right to live in the country is the single most valued aspect of citizenship, not voting or holding public office.For anyone who can pass the 8th grade should be able to pass a basic Citizenship Test.That depends what's on it. Who's going to decide what's on this test?Currently, there are many better informed high schoolers now who should be allowed to vote and be full citizens, than many of the current voting population.A stupid, well-informed person's vote can be a lot less meaningful than a smart, poorly informed person's vote.

Stupid people can know every congressman's private telephone number, yet will fall for "Do it for the Children!" or "Put away Sex Offenders!" every time.

A smart voter may be foggy on the issues, but can read the text of a proposition and see through the smoke and mirrors.And you don't see people rounding up 16 and 17 year olds now, and railcar-ing them to Texas.They're citizens. You can be a citizen, and still lack certain rights, e.g., voting. Even a serial murderer sitting on death row can't be stripped of citizenship, if he was born here, although he can't do many other things.

The reason every country follows the citizenship by birth rule is that it ensures that everyone will be a citizen of some place. Citizens of nowhere have no guaranteed right to remain anywhere, and will be subject to the whims of whatever country agrees to accept them.

So, you really need to distinguish between citizenship as a whole, and certain rights associated with citizenship. Otherwise, it won't only be unfair, but you'll end up with masses of angry people with nothing to lose who will rise up against you (e.g., Palestinians).

We being, a 50% + 1 special vote? Or what?Because if you're not a citizen, and don't have some sort of special permission to be here, it is illegal for you to be in the United States, and you will be deported.
We don't deport children, and they are not full citizens. I said that. What a silly notion.

The unfettered right to live in the country is the single most valued aspect of citizenship, not voting or holding public office.That depends what's on it. Who's going to decide what's on this test?A stupid, well-informed person's vote can be a lot less meaningful than a smart, poorly informed person's vote.
I have already addressed that.

Children and convicts can't vote, we do nothing nefarious to them now.

Stupid people can know every congressman's private telephone number, yet will fall for "Do it for the Children!" or "Put away Sex Offenders!" every time.
Stupid people should not be able to vote.

A smart voter may be foggy on the issues, but can read the text of a proposition and see through the smoke and mirrors.
I want smart voters. I don't care on the numbers, or who is opposed to my ideology, or whatever. I don't want any more stupid people voting.

They're citizens. You can be a citizen, and still lack certain rights, e.g., voting. Even a serial murderer sitting on death row can't be stripped of citizenship, if he was born here, although he can't do many other things.
So then, we already have an acceptable form of striations in levels of citizenship. Good, should make the idea easy to swallow. That is what I am really after anyways.

Your murderer has almost none of the rights that a citizen has, what you call him, again is mere lexicography or taxonomy. Does not change what he is.

You already find the notion of different levels of citizenship acceptable, you just did not realize it. That is all I am really after, but shaking it up a little bit; to the end of greater direct Democracy.

The reason every country follows the citizenship by birth rule is that it ensures that everyone will be a citizen of some place. Citizens of nowhere have no guaranteed right to remain anywhere, and will be subject to the whims of whatever country agrees to accept them.
This is only a problem to you, because you are making it a problem. Your 'Man Without A Country' scenario is silly.

So, you really need to distinguish between citizenship as a whole, and certain rights associated with citizenship. Otherwise, it won't only be unfair, but you'll end up with masses of angry people with nothing to lose who will rise up against you (e.g., Palestinians).
Ya, that is why I am taking the time to discuss this with you.

I mean, you have to agree that letting stupid unengaged people, the insane, and felons make laws is a bad idea. If true voting class citizenship removed those people, then having a National Ballot initiate would be a great idea, and would open up more direct true Democracy.

You will only treat them poorly if you decide later to treat them poorly, then. One does not beget the other. And if the electorate is smarter and more educated and not crazy and not felonious, I don't know why they would ever want to.

You will only treat them poorly if you decide later to treat them poorly, then. One does not beget the other. And if the electorate is smarter and more educated and not crazy and not felonious, I don't know why they would ever want to.Because unchecked power corrupts?

Why should you champion the rights of minority X (blacks, muslims, mentally ill, libertarians -- whatever) when you know the minority has no power to shape society? Ultimately, it would only be the fear that they would rise up and rebel, and then you would just enact laws to prevent them from owning guns, getting influential jobs, and so on. Then you would segregate them from society. Then you would enslave them or kill them, if necessary.

Humans have been down that road many times already, with predictable results. It's human nature, and that's why we need checks and balances.

Oh, so you do LIKE slippery slope arguments then, after all?

They ARE a valid tool in your tool belt of argument and debate repertoire?


Funny.

Oh, so you do LIKE slippery slope arguments then, after all?Not a slippery slope, rather a well-worn path that humanity has been down many times, each time with the same results. Unchecked power invariably leads to abuse.

You have not been around the mentally ill have you?

That **** is just crazy or ignorant.

And I suppose that it is good that the Law disagrees with you. In California, anyone who has had a 5150 can't legally buy or own a firearm. And that is one form of gun control, I completely agree with. That is good and reasonable.

I've been around alot of folks with psychological disorders. More than I can count. Some who were involuntarily hospitalized when they shouldn't have been, as young adults.

Most folks with some manner of psychological disorder are no threat to anyone...as I said, though, the current standard of involuntary hospitalization being the point where you can no longer own a firearm is sufficient.

Every person who has thought of himself as god or jesus or mary.
Every person who has thought of a family member as god or jesus or mary.
Every person who has seen the devil in person, or demons.
Every person who is otherwise religiously fixated.
Every person who is paranoid psychotic.
Every person who is paranoid schizophrenic.
Every person who has murder or suicide ideation.
Every person who has delusional paranoid ideation.
Every person who 'hears voices'.
Every person who is clinically 'sexually inappropriate.'

That is just the/a short list.

And no, I do not think that a person suffering from clinical depression should be going down to Crosshairs Guns and Ammo and buying a gun. Emphatically not a good idea!


What the everloving **** is sexually inappropriate?

And a person can have suicidal ideation at one point...and then become just fine. One stint of severe depression should not forever bar you from your rights.

Your list is only a tiny percentage of people that have a diagnosable mental illness. You work in a hospital, so no doubt you often see the extreme cases, but they're the ultra-rare exception. Like, probably less than 0.01%.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/numbers.cfm#IntroDo you think 1 in 4 people shouldn't be allowed to vote, or should have fewer rights than you have? People who, for the most part, can think rationally and function in society?

I'm sure even Aidon would agree that a delusional, violent schizophrenic ranting about how god is telling him to kill the sinners shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns. But that's a far cry from your blanket "mentally ill shouldn't be allowed to vote or own guns" statement.

Own guns? Probably a bad idea....but he should be able to vote if he should so desire.

The Right to Vote is Sacrosanct. You can put no test upon a citizen's right to vote...

Fy'yr forgets fundamental aspects which make the concept of "merit" based "democracy" a sham.

Who decides what is "smart" enought to vote?

What test is used to determine who is "smart" enough to vote?

As for mandatory service....please, you're a Libertarpublican, you would have an annuerism at the cost burden that would impose on the federal government. They'd have to actually tax rich people.

Fy'yr forgets fundamental aspects which make the concept of "merit" based "democracy" a sham.Fyyr doesn't forget, he just evades the issue whenever it comes up, including in this thread.

I'm sure if you ask again, you'll get a nice anecdote about cultural relativism, or some such thing.

I will do you one better.

Make the bar, just one person over my head.

I am so confident in having smart people vote, instead of stupid ones, crazies, and felons, that I would give up my vote on good faith.

But right now, it is absolutely worthless, so it's not like I am giving up anything of value.

I will do you one better.

Make the bar, just one person over my head.

I am so confident in having smart people vote, instead of stupid ones, crazies, and felons, that I would give up my vote on good faith.

But right now, it is absolutely worthless, so it's not like I am giving up anything of value.

I hate to break it to you, Fy'yr, but by most reasonable methods of gauging such things...smart people, by and large, tend to be liberals.

You'd hate having them vote for you.

There is a reason why universities are reviled by the slack jawed yokels which comprise most of the republican party...because they are overwhelmingly liberal in tendancy. So much so that even I cringe at some of the ridiculousness which is bred in the collegiate atmosphere. Regardless, though, it is the necessary broadening of mind and thought requisite of intellectual growth which breeds such liberalism. Some folks, yes, broaden their mind and then decide they would rather become conservative (generally this is accompanied by a selling of ones soul or morals for dollars or power), but far more start down the path of knowledge and realize things aren't always working the way they should be...and seek to change them. Hence, liberals.

Again, you'd hate it if only smart people voted.

So would the GOP. They'd lose every trailer park vote between LA and Chicago.

So be it.

Liberals are smart enough to know that indoctrinating young college mushheads is a great recruitment strategy.

I have realized that for a very long time.


I already have 10 stupid uninformed people canceling my vote right now. My vote and yours are already meaningless and watered down.

If you limited the voting pool to 100...your vote would still be cancelled out by someone.

That's a fallacy that our votes are meaningless and watered down, beyond the fact that our representative democracy needs some updating to account for the population growth.

And I would suggest that it is not liberal "indoctrination" which breeds more liberals in college...but the combination of individuals out from beneath the opinions of their parents combined with education, not merely in and of itself, but education on how you can educate yourself.

In college you learn how to think for yourself. Which is not to suggest that even a minority of people in the university systems actually do think for themselves, but that's mostly a seperate issue (people are sheep...by and large, regardless of whether they follow the flock of liberalism or the flock of conservatism...very few folks actually do anything other than ape the opinions of those they've decided to align themselves with).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/

Ex-Duke D.A. charged with ethics violations
Nifong accused of withholding DNA evidence, lying to court, in rape case

Why does he get special treatment just because he is a lawyer? The bar for criminality should be higher for these sleaze bags, not lower.

They just want to take his license away from him for his criminal behavior. That is a slap on the wrist for gross malfeasance.

Seems I have lost moderator access.

I wanted to move the other thread to trash, but can't.

This thread has so derailed, you might as well go with the new one.

She locked it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/

Ex-Duke D.A. charged with ethics violations
Nifong accused of withholding DNA evidence, lying to court, in rape case

Why does he get special treatment just because he is a lawyer? The bar for criminality should be higher for these sleaze bags, not lower.

They just want to take his license away from him for his criminal behavior. That is a slap on the wrist for gross malfeasance.

Its not because he's a lawyer...its for the same that cops can gun down people in the street and end up getting administrative leave for a few months until things die down.

And there was nothing unusual about his behavior. DAs withhold evidence and lie all the time. The only difference in this case is that he got caught, and it's a high profile case so the medial is all over him.

Its not because he's a lawyer...its for the same that cops can gun down people in the street and end up getting administrative leave for a few months until things die down.

If he were not a lawyer he would be indicted for false imprisonment and kidnapping.

For which he should be imprisoned. He should be imprisoned for perjury and withholding evidence and obstruction of justice. He should be imprisoned for conspiracy.

And there was nothing unusual about his behavior. DAs withhold evidence and lie all the time. The only difference in this case is that he got caught, and it's a high profile case so the medial is all over him.

They do it all the time, because they are not accountable and don't fear punishment.

Professionals, and especially lawyers charged with upholding and enacting the law, should fear losing more than just their licenses when they commit crimes.


This is not akin to malpractice, this is as the same as a doctor or nurse intentionally dosing disease or toxins into healthy people.

Professionals, and especially lawyers charged with upholding and enacting the law, should fear losing more than just their licenses when they commit crimes.True, but when those same professionals are the ones responsible for enforcing the law (mainly, police, DAs, and judges), you're going to have a hard time convincing them to screw themselves over.This is not akin to malpractice, this is as the same as a doctor or nurse intentionally dosing disease or toxins into healthy people.That's a poor comparison. In medicine, you usually have only one goal, the well-being of the patient. In criminal law, there are two parties, and two competing goals, always. Lying and hiding evidence is unfortunately part of the game in an adversarial legal system.

See I have a problem with the ethics of that.

It this may be just my own problem, of course.

But I would prefer that those who seek to work in the Justice system actually aspire to help acquire Justice.

If those who are entrusted to work in the Justice system are empowered to lie, in order to do so only because there is an antagonistic or adversarial relationship between any two parties(plaintiff vs defendant/State vs individual); I find that wholey unacceptable in the search for Justice.

It is completely unethical behavior to endorse lying in the search for Truth. Any lawyer who endorses this notion(that lying is acceptable) or teaches it should be expelled from the system.

True, but when those same professionals are the ones responsible for enforcing the law (mainly, police, DAs, and judges), you're going to have a hard time convincing them to screw themselves over.

We have the Ballot Initiative in California, we can let voters decide.

Just need to change people's opinions about it to change the law.

That works for us, just as it can work against us.

If those who are entrusted to work in the Justice system are empowered to lie, in order to do so only because there is an antagonistic or adversarial relationship between any two parties(plaintiff vs defendant/State vs individual); I find that wholey unacceptable in the search for Justice.Then you have a fundamental problem with the English adversary system, which is premised on the notion that each side presents their opposing views, defining the boundaries of an argument, then they slowly work towards a middle ground with the help of a judge or jury, to arrive at the supposed Truth or Justice.

You prefer a more European system, where the judges, who are entrusted to be neutral, take an active role in investigating a case.

Each system has its own advantages. At least in the English system, if someone lies, the injured party can call them on it.It is completely unethical behavior to endorse lying in the search for Truth. Any lawyer who endorses this notion(that lying is acceptable) or teaches it should be expelled from the system.Theoretically, lying is not acceptable in the system. But that's kind of like telling teenagers that it's unacceptable to have sex.

We have the Ballot Initiative in California, we can let voters decide.You'd need to amend the U.S. Constitution too, because it also sets up an adversary system. Good luck.

You prefer a more European system, where the judges, who are entrusted to be neutral, take an active role in investigating a case.

I don't know about that.

I want a jury of my peers, though. That I know. Which is mentioned and mandated in the Constitution.

I want my juries to be smart, intelligent, inquisitive, and able to ask questions of both opposing parties to help them come to the decision that they will come to.

They should be able to ask questions directly to witnesses. As well as of the representative lawyers, and of the judge openly.

I don't ever want twelve angry unemployed monkeys at any trial I ever have to endure. And that is what we have now. I don't care where it descended from, the current system is a joke.

You'd need to amend the U.S. Constitution too, because it also sets up an adversary system. Good luck.

We need a Ballot Initiative Federally.

That is absolutely certain.

The Ballot Initiative in California has been one of the best legislative and Democratic institutions of my lifetime, of this country's history if you may allow that its inception created the Ballot Initiative in many other states as well.

A Ballot Initiative, Federally, though would require a Constitutional Amendment, absolutely. So I am NOT holding my breath. I don't think we will ever, ever, be able to pass another one again, in the current political machine climate. But I am sure that was also said right before any Amendment was ever passed, as well.

"Alcohol? You want to ban alcohol? It will never happen?"
"Repeal Prohibition? Give me a break. It will never happen"

I want my juries to be smart, intelligent, inquisitive, and able to ask questions of both opposing parties to help them come to the decision that they will come to.

They should be able to ask questions directly to witnesses. As well as of the representative lawyers, and of the judge openly.There is little difference between what you want and a European-type system. A panel of judges that can investigate and come to their own conclusions is basically just a smarter, more educated, and more empowered jury panel.

You can't really have the best of both worlds, because there is an inherent tension between an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system. The more features of one you adopt, the fewer of the other you're going to retain.I want a jury of my peers, though. That I know. Which is mentioned and mandated in the Constitution.No, it isn't. Not of your peers, that is.I don't ever want twelve angry unemployed monkeys at any trial I ever have to endure. And that is what we have now. I don't care where it descended from, the current system is a joke.Some have advocated professional juries, but that idea presents complications of its own, which arguably outweigh the benefits.

We need a Ballot Initiative Federally.

That is absolutely certain.

The Ballot Initiative in California has been one of the best legislative and Democratic institutions of my lifetime, of this country's history if you may allow that its inception created the Ballot Initiative in many other states as well.True federal democracy would be interesting. But ballot initiatives have their own set of problems.

First, winning or losing has a lot to do with how well funded each side is. That's not quite as true for legislators.

Second, average citizens won't take the time to inform themselves about a string of propositions, especially if they are on esoteric topics such as water rights or eminent domain, whereas a legislative committee would.

Third, California ballots are too damned long already.

True federal democracy would be interesting. But ballot initiatives have their own set of problems.
Yes, they do. They can be Un-Constitutional for example. Many California Initiative laws have been struck down for such. I have no problem with that. That oversight should be there.

First, winning or losing has a lot to do with how well funded each side is. That's not quite as true for legislators.
If you remember how the California Legislature was before there were Initiatives, any Californian would probably say that it is better today. Legislators and even the Governor right now is much more responsive to the citizens, for better or worse, in California now, than before.

Second, average citizens won't take the time to inform themselves about a string of propositions, especially if they are on esoteric topics such as water rights or eminent domain, whereas a legislative committee would.

We have discussed this point ad nauseum. I do not disagree with this point. If a citizen does not know the issues, or the consequences, then should not be a part of the lawmaking process. And I am not convinced that a legislative committee is all that great a thing, in the first place.

Direct Democracy is a noble goal. It should be attempted. Regardless of the pitfalls and crevasses. But stupid people should not be a part of the process. The whole Constitution is set up to prevent stupid people from making law.

Third, California ballots are too damned long already.
They don't need to be.

If a citizen does not know the issues, or the consequences, then should not be a part of the lawmaking process.But since every citizen has the right to vote, there's no constitutionally valid screening process.

Average citizens never bother to read the law, and just vote by the title or by what the TV ads tell them to vote. You're lucky if a citizen even bothers to read some of the arguments in the voter pamphlet. Just look at that horrendous sex offender proposition that recently passed, I bet no one had any idea what they were really voting for.

By contrast, in a legislative committee, you can include any screening process you like, plus most legislators are, by default, more educated and informed than the average citizen. You can legally achieve your goal of only letting smart, informed people vote, so long as the selection process is demanding enough.

But since every citizen has the right to vote, there's no constitutionally valid screening process.
That is why we should work on that one, shouldn't we?

There used to be a constitutional screening process, but it has been removed over the years. At least valid to the Founders of this country, and the writers of the Constitution. They absolutely wanted a way to have valid people voting. They wanted smart people making laws, the whole system was set up to prevent stupid people from making laws. Their implementation as poor, and has been struck down accordingly, but it was the best that they had at the time.

We are smarter now? Maybe, maybe not. We do have better rubrics to help us decide, though. And to answer your next question, NO, not everyone who just happens to be born in the geographical US should be allowed to vote on a Federally based National Ballot Initiative. That should not be the only criterion.

Average citizens never bother to read the law, and just vote by the title or by what the TV ads tell them to vote. You're lucky if a citizen even bothers to read some of the arguments in the voter pamphlet. Just look at that horrendous sex offender proposition that recently passed, I bet no one had any idea what they were really voting for.
I agree. These people should not be voting at all. Let alone in a truely Democratic system, of direct lawmaking, via Federal Ballot Initiative.

By contrast, in a legislative committee, you can include any screening process you like, plus most legislators are, by default, more educated and informed than the average citizen. You can legally achieve your goal of only letting smart, informed people vote, so long as the selection process is demanding enough.
I don't have any respect for committees, just because they are committees. Regardless of who is in them. They have to work harder to convince me that they are correct. Anyone who has ever been in a committee, and with half a brain, would have to agree with that.

That is why we should work on that one, shouldn't we?Sorry, it isn't a real democracy if all adult citizens, subject to the law and taxation, don't get the right to vote for their leaders. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to vote for everything, which is why we have representatives, and proxies.There used to be a constitutional screening process, but it has been removed over the years. At least valid to the Founders of this country, and the writers of the Constitution. They absolutely wanted a way to have valid people voting. They wanted smart people making laws, the whole system was set up to prevent stupid people from making laws. Their implementation as poor, and has been struck down accordingly, but it was the best that they had at the time.You mean, limiting it by race, sex, and age? Hardly a meaningful screening process.
I don't have any respect for committees, just because they are committees. Regardless of who is in them. They have to work harder to convince me that they are correct. Anyone who has ever been in a committee, and with half a brain, would have to agree with that.Maybe committee is the wrong term. I'm referring generally to a vote among legislators, not open to the public.

If he were not a lawyer he would be indicted for false imprisonment and kidnapping.

For which he should be imprisoned. He should be imprisoned for perjury and withholding evidence and obstruction of justice. He should be imprisoned for conspiracy.

Actually, he can't be charged for perjury, he did not testify to anything under oath, and most likely has not sworn any affidavits.

Witholding evidence, perhaps, though I'm not certain that is even a crime, in this circumstance. Generally withholding evidence, as a criminal offense, is hiding evidence from the police. I'm not certain the law is written to cover the courtroom at all. It is unethical and sanctionable, but I'm not sure its criminal. Obstruction of justice might be an interesting legal question...as for false imprisonment and kidnapping, no. Prosecutors have broad discretional powers. Further, so far as I am aware none of the defendants were held in custody past their arraignment.

His conduct was fairly despicable, he should lose his job, and if he intentionally withheld probative evidence, should be severely sanctioned (and perhaps disbarred, but has to do with the standards of the Bar in his State, though I would suggest that his misconduct falls squarely under the "moral tirpitude" heading, as it were), but other than obstruction of justice (which doesn't net anyone jail time anyways), and possibly withholding evidence, nothing he's done is in any way illegal.

So, no, it has nothing to do with him being a lawyer, other than the fact that Prosecutors are lawyers.

You can rest assured that had it been the police who withheld evidence, there would still be no charges brought against them.

We need a Ballot Initiative Federally.

That is absolutely certain.

The Ballot Initiative in California has been one of the best legislative and Democratic institutions of my lifetime, of this country's history if you may allow that its inception created the Ballot Initiative in many other states as well.

A Ballot Initiative, Federally, though would require a Constitutional Amendment, absolutely. So I am NOT holding my breath. I don't think we will ever, ever, be able to pass another one again, in the current political machine climate. But I am sure that was also said right before any Amendment was ever passed, as well.

"Alcohol? You want to ban alcohol? It will never happen?"
"Repeal Prohibition? Give me a break. It will never happen"

Ballot initiatives are the devil's work. The Mob is stupid...its made up of people like yourself who would rather see everything thrown away in a fit of anger, than even entertain the idea that there is logic behind systems which should, at the very least, be examined, before throwing it away

The Founders decided upon representative democracy for a reason...people were supposed to vote for the person they trusted to look after their community's interests, because the A) the average american at the time did not have the education we would hope our leaders to have and B) The Mob id stupid.

That doesn't mean elected officials who only do what his constituency tells him to do, either. He is supposed to make his decision based on what he believes is best for his community...and his community is supposed to vote for the person they are most willing to entrust that task with.

Ballot initiatives are bad [/quote]

Witholding evidence, perhaps, though I'm not certain that is even a crime, in this circumstance. Generally withholding evidence, as a criminal offense, is hiding evidence from the police. I'm not certain the law is written to cover the courtroom at all. It is unethical and sanctionable, but I'm not sure its criminal. Obstruction of justice might be an interesting legal question...as for false imprisonment and kidnapping, no. Prosecutors have broad discretional powers. Further, so far as I am aware none of the defendants were held in custody past their arraignment.

Would an expert witness, a forensics expert perhaps, be prosecuted if they deliberately gave false testimony to secure a conviction or release?

Would an expert witness, a forensics expert perhaps, be prosecuted if they deliberately gave false testimony to secure a conviction or release?

Yes, but they'd be persecuted for perjury, as expert witnesses testify under oath.

Yes, but they'd be persecuted for perjury, as expert witnesses testify under oath.

So why should prosecutors who knowlingly present false evidence in court be exempt from prosecution too? Why are they exempted from the same standards that are applied to witnesses? Why don't they take an oath?

So why should prosecutors who knowlingly present false evidence in court be exempt from prosecution too? Why are they exempted from the same standards that are applied to witnesses? Why don't they take an oath?

And no, attorney's do not swear an oath to provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth, etc. etc.

Their job is not to provide the whole truth. Their job is to represent their clients by all means legal and ethical, which does not necessarily mean full disclosure or telling the truth.

Imagine, if you would, if an attorney was forced swear under oath...how would he represent his client in a criminal matter if his client actually had committed the crime?

Because, so far as I know, there is no law against it. There are ethical considerations, but at first blush, without doing research, I can't think of a law that the prosecutor broke. Though, a case could be made for contempt of court...but that's not sending him to prison.

Their job is not to provide the whole truth. Their job is to represent their clients by all means legal and ethical, which does not necessarily mean full disclosure or telling the truth.

Of course it means disclosing the truth. To lie is unethical and against the principles of courts and justice. They don't have to volunteer information but they should ensure that they present truthful responses in court.

Imagine, if you would, if an attorney was forced swear under oath...how would he represent his client in a criminal matter if his client actually had committed the crime?

Honestly. The opinion of the defence attourney cannot be taken as evidence in court anyway and if the defence attourney can't build a case based on facts and conjecture then just why should they be allowed to build one based on lies?

Because, so far as I know, there is no law against it.

So let's bring one in. I can see that there is a grey area between providing a full defence and providing total truth, however we move towards black and white territory when a prosecutor deliberately withholds evidence requested by formal process.

Of course it means disclosing the truth. To lie is unethical and against the principles of courts and justice. They don't have to volunteer information but they should ensure that they present truthful responses in court.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean lying, but the defense in a trial is less obligated to share information which could be damaging. It goes back to that entire 5th amendment thing where a defendant cannot be compelled to proffer testimony against himself.

Again...it does not mean disclosing the truth. A very basic example: The attorney tells the jury in open and closing statements that his client is innocent...even though the attorney knows that the client is guilty, because the client admitted it to him. If attorney did anything but tell the jury his client is innocent, there would be a mistrial and the attorney stands a decent chance of being disbarred.



Honestly. The opinion of the defence attourney cannot be taken as evidence in court anyway and if the defence attourney can't build a case based on facts and conjecture then just why should they be allowed to build one based on lies?

A criminal defendant is permitted to build a case on virtually anything he wants. He has wide latitude for how to defend himself, because the prosecution bears the burden of proof. While the defendant cannot lie if he takes the stand, since he is under oath, nor can any witnesses he calls, the attorney is not required to tell the truth and can well be sanctioned for doing so, if the truth is not in his client's best interest.



So let's bring one in. I can see that there is a grey area between providing a full defence and providing total truth, however we move towards black and white territory when a prosecutor deliberately withholds evidence requested by formal process.

I would be all for a a law criminalizing the deliberate withholding of evidence on the part of a prosecutor.

I would be all for a a law criminalizing the deliberate withholding of evidence on the part of a prosecutor.

Good. You could have said that earlier as that seems to be exactly where we started :).

You have argued before that lying is a part of truth, and that unfairness is just.

Your Alan Dershowitz Bizarro World is absurd.



A lawyer who lies should be disbarred, at the minimum. If he lies and this results in the imprisonment of innocent people, he should be disbarred and thrown in prison.

You have argued before that lying is a part of truth, and that unfairness is just.

Your Alan Dershowitz Bizarro World is absurd.



A lawyer who lies should be disbarred, at the minimum. If he lies and this results in the imprisonment of innocent people, he should be disbarred and thrown in prison.

Its only bizzare to the uneducated.

And lying is not the same as withholding the full truth. Though, again, I must refer you to the very basic example of the defense attorney who proclaims his clients innocence in his opening statement and closing argument. That cannot be made illegal.

And if you want laws which will imprison prosecutors which lying to imprison innocent people, by all means try to get one passed. I'd vote for it.

Update.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/16/duke.lacrosse/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

What, no prison time? His lying was far more serious than, say, Martha Stewart's.

What, no prison time? His lying was far more serious than, say, Martha Stewart's.

The state bar association has no authority to imprison anyone.

My understanding is he'll be seeing various criminal charges brought against him, most likely, as well as various civil suits and federal civil rights claims.

The state bar association has no authority to imprison anyone.

My understanding is he'll be seeing various criminal charges brought against him, most likely, as well as various civil suits and federal civil rights claims.

It's a shame it won't be treated as simply as perjury, but lets see what happens.

Kidnapping.

Battery.

False imprisonment.

Filing a false report.

Defamation of character.

Libel and slander, with malice.

Why just perjury?

Don't forget the old standby, obstruction of justice.

I thought that was part of the job description of every lawyer.





Even I don't think you could conceivably charge a lawyer with that. That would be like charging a priest with believing in God.