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> <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 02:31:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 22:31:15 EDT
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> >> 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
The prohibited act is not killing people it is killing people when the killer
has been shown to have a particular mind set. we call this mens rea. If you
don't have the mens rea, no there is no crime. if you don't have the
opportunity to show the mind set, no we have not demonstrated in he legal system
that a crime has occurred.
> > 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
to them, but not to external reality.
> 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.
sure if it is proven.
> 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.
this is a facutal not a legal issue.
> And trust me, you don't have to wait for a Dr. to say
> you are before you are.
Actually thsi is an interesting example of my point. intersection fo the sperm
and egg are a necessary precondtion to beomicng pregnant, but do not define the
moment. when the you get "implantation" it "relates back" top conception.
prior to implantaitn no you are not pregnatn. if it doenst implant, you never
> > 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.
each country has their own rules no problem.
> Most Europe thinks we are nuts for
> so restricting our police. And no one has said the law determines truth.
yes. Mr Mcall has said that guilt is a question of truth.
> The whole point has been if some thing is against the law, either you do it
> or you don't.
no, either its proven or it isn't
> Arrest, trial, conviction, sentencing do not change whether
> an event happened or not.
event yes violation of the law no
> Those things may affect the treatment of the
> actor, but it does not change whether they were done or not.
it changes whether a crime has been declared.
> > 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.
> > Vince
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of