08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou're in denial. The Guildford four were declared innocent. Timothy Evans was innocent - it was the insane physician who did it. Dereck Bentley was hanged on the basis of 'let him have it' whilst under arrest. Nineteen years old. A child of two parents. Picture yourself with his parents at the precise time of his hanging, a teenager. Go on Sam the Sham, do it. Close your eyes and feel the intolearble pain of a corrupt legal system legally killing their son at a precise time. A SON, who they love. Go on. Do it, Sam the Sham. Picture your son / daughter being hanged wrongfully but legally.
yeah yeah yeah you mentioned all those before and I looked them up, nothing about those cases is as clear cut as you make out and they weren't declared innocent of all wrong doing as you claim, it was judicial error, etc.
I quit, argue with someone else.
The legal system gets it wrong. Face facts. The legal system condones legal murder.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoTheir convictions were overturned, they weren't "declared innocent". Courts don't do that.
You're in denial. The Guildford four were declared innocent.
The legal system gets it wrong. Face facts.
Yes, legal systems can get it wrong. The Guilford Four ? Maybe, maybe not.
But they weren't "declared" anything.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamRUBBISH! The judge clearly said : The police must have lied.
Their convictions were overturned, they weren't "declared innocent". Courts don't do that.
Yes, legal systems can get it wrong. The Guilford Four ? Maybe, maybe not.
But they weren't "declared" anything.
Teenagers jailed for life for something they did not do simply for the fact that the police wanted to 'get a result'. Corrupt, disgusting police officers. THEY, the police, ARE THE GUILTY, not teenage hippies.
Your son / daughter? Would you accept it?
08 Jan 08
Go on Sam the Sham, do it. Close your eyes and feel the intolearble pain of a corrupt legal system legally killing their teenaged son at a precise time. A SON, who they love. Go on. Do it, Sam the Sham. Picture your teenaged son / daughter being hanged wrongfully but legally.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoLemmee explain something to you znsho. Occasionally courts overturn convictions because of some sort of judicial error, etc. Sometimes these are cases over 20 years old, and the state has a choice, trying them again after all the evidence, witnesses, etc. are long gone or let them go. Many times they're up for parole anyway and people just don't care anymore, so they take the easy way out. Then naive teenagers like you run around and say "See they were declared teh innocent"! The system is all kinds of corrupt w00T w00T."
Go on Sam the Sham, do it. Close your eyes and feel the intolearble pain of a corrupt legal system legally killing their teenaged son at a precise time. A SON, who they love. Go on. Do it, Sam the Sham. Picture your teenaged son / daughter being hanged wrongfully but legally.
That's all.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThe convictions were overturned because they were innocent of that of which they were convicted.
Lemmee explain something to you znsho. Occasionally courts overturn convictions because of some sort of judicial error, etc. Sometimes these are cases over 20 years old, and the state has a choice, trying them again after all the evidence, witnesses, etc. are long gone or let them go. Many times they're up for parole anyway and people just don't care a ...[text shortened]... ere declared teh innocent"! The system is all kinds of corrupt w00T w00T."
That's all.
And yes, the judge did declare falsification of proof by the police.
08 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by znshoWhats the something else you mention...?
Sam The Sham,
I don't get you. Is it your opinion that the process of law NEVER gets it wrong? Or, is it your opinion, 'yes, it gets it wrong sometimes, but who cares as long as some of the guilty suffer'?
Is it your opinion that 'dress someone up in uniform, give them authority, and they NEVER TELL A LIE, they are prisitine and perfect?'.
It is ver system is corrupt. It has nothing to do with 'innocence / guilt', but something else.
And some concrete proof to back it up be nice too.
08 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by SMSBear716I have already mentioned the 'something else'. Please read and digest discussions carefully. Here is the something else again:
Whats the something else you mention...?
And some concrete proof to back it up be nice too.
'Police / prosecution: Find the accused guilty no matter what evidence we have that he / she is innocent.
Defence: Find the accused party not guilty no matter what evidence we have that they are guilty.'
Concete proof? Read my threads!!!!
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSays the Judge and, in the case of the Guildford Four, the honest detective who found the evidence of innocence re: the person who witnessed the four in London (written signed statement, not disclosed to the defence) when the prosecution claimed they were in Guildford (50 odd miles away). Also, the person who also testified ' they were in London at the time' and, that person who was arrested on a trumped up charge, even though he went voluntarily to the police, to say to the police ' you have got the wrong people'.
Says who?
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoI'm confused. Why did the guy plead no contest to involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to time served if he was innocent?. Shouldn't he have been compensated for his 20 years in jail?. What was the evidence that proved him innocent?
Says the Judge and, in the case of the Guildford Four, the honest detective who found the evidence of innocence re: the person who witnessed the four in London (written signed statement, not disclosed to the defence) when the prosecution claimed they were in Guildford (50 odd miles away). Also, the person who also testified ' they were in London at the time' a ...[text shortened]... gh he went voluntarily to the police, to say to the police ' you have got the wrong people'.
GRANNY.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by shavixmirPunishment IS what breaks the cycle. Whoever does something wrong is much more likely to do it again if he goes unpunished.
Interestingly enough, the second part (in the same paragraph of the bible) of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is "Turn the other cheek."
It's about breaking a vicious circle (whether it's violence, blood vengeance, punishment, etc. )
Turning the other cheek can work between highly moral and sensitive individuals OR it can lead you to meet your Maker. Fair punishment (and the desire to avoid it) works better across a broad range of individuals.
JC did not have kids, remember.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by znshoThat's a consequence of the adversarial system. The Judge and the Jury listen to both sides doing their darndest, and make the call. Their is no inherent bias/corruption in the system -- I'm not sure where you got that.
How is the legal sytem corrupt?
Try this:
Police / prosecution: Find the accused guilty no matter what evidence we have that he / she is innocent.
Defence: Find the accused party not guilty no matter what evidence we have that they are guilty.
The alternative is what -- to have both prosecution and defense sit down over coffee and come up with a meaningful compromise? It's different -- very comfy. But less biased? I doubt it. And more opportunities for corruption? Absolutely.
I'm not defending cases of police corruption and falsifying evidence; but changing the adversarial system will not help that.
08 Jan 08
Originally posted by shavixmirActually, S the S is right. 'Not guilty' is not a synonym for 'innocent'.
The convictions were overturned because they were innocent of that of which they were convicted.
And yes, the judge did declare falsification of proof by the police.
Think of three classes -- 'Guilty', 'innocent', and 'we don't know'. 'Not guilty' comprises 'innocent' + 'we don't know'.
So the finding of 'guilt' based on tainted evidence is reversed to 'not guilty'. But that does not make them innocent.