From: Fred J. McCall
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Organization: is for people who don't have real work to do
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:46:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 07:46:58 PDT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
:Brian Sharrock wrote:
:> I draw to the attention of the readers, that Vince is utilising his
:> frequent technique of concentrating on one word 'villian' and trying to
:> divert the topic away from his original statement 'crimes ... do not
:> exist until someone is convicted ... '. If it makes Vince more happy;
:> I concede his point and instruct the jury to disregard the word villian
:> and substitute the term accused. The jury will of course, remember the
:> elephant and consider that the set of villiams contains a large set of
:> people who've been accused and a smaller set that've been previously
:> convicted. My understanding is that a crimes exists when a law is broken
:> and does not rely on subsequent conviction.
:when does a "penalty" come into existence in football? when the "event" occurs
:or when the official makes an appropriate signal (deliberately not limiting
:myself to american football but also including the game the world calls
Note that legal trials have a separate penalty phase that follows the
conviction. One can commit an infraction and not get caught. One can
also not commit an infraction and get called for one anyway. Neither
of these changes the actual facts with regard to whether the
infraction was actually committed, which is why tape review is
:> Not many people that I know use the word _criem_ so I don't know what
:> purpose it serves. Answer the point about Coroners' Court verdicts
:> of 'unlawful Killing' does such a verdict have a 'legal structure'?
:> Take into consideration that such juries are not allowed to name
:> a suspect, not even who they consider to be the villain.
:There is an ancient maxim of the the law "Nullum crimen sine poena" which is
:translated as No crime without punishment.
Why do I get the feeling you're about to misrepresent what this really
:Ordinary crimes do not exist separate from punishment. (the maxim has other
:meanings, but this is the one which is relevant to this discussion.
Nonsense! This implies that all those 'unsolved crimes' are not
crimes at all, since there is never any punishment. That's merely
:As and example
: TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
: PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 51 - HOMICIDE
: Sec. 1111. Murder (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being
:with malice aforethought.
Note that it does not require trial. It speaks to WHAT IS DONE, not
what is found. One can commit a murder, plea bargain it down to some
lesser included offense, and suddenly no murder was committed? No,
that just means that no CHARGE is made.
:Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait,
:or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing;
:or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson,
:escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual
:abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a
:premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human
:being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any other
:murder is murder in the second degree.
Note that once again, the law is speaking to WHAT IS DONE. A fallible
court may not have all the facts, but that doesn't change the facts.
: (b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
:States, Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by
:death or by imprisonment for life;
: Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any
:term of years or for life.
:now when do you know that a "Murder" has occurred? you know when someone is
:found "guilty" . The statute does not define murder and then say "whoever
:commits a murder"
It also doesn't say "found guilty"; it says merely "guilty". Now,
presumably a court cannot execute a punishment on a crime that it has
insufficient facts to prove, but that is irrelevant to the issue at
:A jury is asked to determine whether a specific person is guilty of a specific
:murder they make both findings simultaneously.
But whatever they find does not change THE FACTS. Lots of people
commit murder and get off. Does the ignorance or incompetence of the
court mean that no murder occurred? Of course not. That would be
"Nekubi o kaite was ikenai"
["It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man."]
-- Admiral Yamamoto