The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:59:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 05:59:48 EDT
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > Vince Brannigan wrote:
> > For those who would like to under stand the difference between facts
> > and guilt
> > Ex parte Garland (US Sup. Ct) 1866
> > A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and
> > the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases
> > the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the
> > eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never
> > committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents any
> > of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from
> > attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and
> > disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him,
> > as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity
> > end
> > Guilt is therefore a simple legal declaration, not a "fact".
> > Vince
> The only thing wrong with your use of this case is that it destroys your
> argument about a conviction being required for it to be a crime. It bolts
> out the guilt, and then describes how, before or after a conviction. So you
> can have a crime without a conviction, otherwise you could only have a
> pardon after the conviction.
It does no such thing. The pardon eliminates guilt, not merely gives clemency
for the criminal. Now how do you eliminate guilt, but retain the crime as some
kind of "fact"? you can't Facts cant be changed but guilt clearly can. Crime,
like guilt is not a "fact" . That a "crime" has occurred is not a fact, it is
an operative legal declaration . No one outside the legal system has to
believe it. Because it is a declaration rather than a state of facts it can be
revised at any time. We have no system (in the USA) for declaring that a crime
has been committed except by convicting someone. Whether we make such a
declaration or not does not change the events, but to the legal system the
status of the OJ case is that no crime has been declared. the same is true of
the hinckley case.
> Thousands of crimes occur everyday and no one is arrested. That does not
> change the fact that a crime occurred.
> Lets take one of your examples about Murder, and if there was justification.
> Lets change it a little. Billy walks up and shots Mary in the head. Billy
> is examined and found to be legally incompetent to stand trial. No trial no
> conviction, Billy is in the nut house Mary is dead. There was no
> justification, no accident(manslaughter), no legal defenses to Murder. We
> don't even go to the issue of Not Guilty be reason of insanity because of
> the incompetent he never even goes to trial. Does that mean no crime. I
> don't think so.
and your example proves my point. There was no declaration of guilt. We have no
legal declaration whether a crime was committed or not. . Similarly We cant
convict dead people of crimes.
Similarly the Nazi's had courts. someone convicted in a nazi court is a
criminal in that system, but those outside the system do not have to accept it
as a "fact".
Palestinians do not have to accept Israeli convictions as "facts" and so forth.
Frankly this is not a very complicated concept. I had Sam Dash for criminal law
before he became the watergate special prosecutor. I remember the discussions o
this concept very clearly. The law does not determine truth. the law makes
operative declarations in accordance with a set of rules. That is why Miranda
and the right to remain silent and rules of evidence etc. all make sense. they
are the socially accepted rules for making legal declarations that a crime has
been committed and this person is guilty of it.
As More is says according to Bolt "the world construes in accordance with its
wit, the court constures in accordance with the law"
the law has all kinds of distinctiosn that are not drawn in the rest of the
world. Whehter a crime has been committted is one of them.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of