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.
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 02:09:45 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 02:09:45 GMT
Vince Brannigan wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>> 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
>>> Guilt is therefore a simple legal declaration, not a "fact".
>> 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.
So Mary was not murdered. She just became dead. One min. here, the next
Your argument begs the entire point of what a crime is. Every legal
dictionary and even non-legal dictionary and every text I went back and
looked at, all say the same thing and NONE of them say a crime is only a
crime after someone is convicted. In fact they are all similar to the
definition I listed earlier that basically say that a crime is committing a
prohibited act. NOTHING about determination of guilt. Just the committing
of the prohibited act.
But then I suppose all those legal writers would not know what they speak
> 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.
That's right and in Nazi Germany if you committed one of those acts it was
crime. Just like possessing Marijuana is a prohibited act in this country
but not in others. So yes it is a crime to possess it here but not there.
Because what is "prohibited" changes from place to place or even from time
to time does not change the fact that it is prohibited. Either you did or
you didn't do the prohibited thing. Kind of like being pregnant, either you
are or you are not. And trust me, you don't have to wait for a Dr. to say
you are before you are.
> 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.
They only make sense in this country. Most Europe thinks we are nuts for
so restricting our police. And no one has said the law determines truth.
The whole point has been if some thing is against the law, either you do it
or you don't. Arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing do not change whether
an event happened or not. Those things may affect the treatment of the
actor, but it does not change whether they were done or not.
> 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