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: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :I asked if that was the claim being made one option was
> : 1) he committed perjury , but got a plea bargain
> Which requires an initial charge, so that's not it.
> :> The fact that he was not criminally charged and was instead given "other
> :> choices" does not change the fact that he committed a crime.
> So for Vince, a murder victim isn't dead until the killer is charged?
> My, what a Schroedinger universe he lives in.
Actually a schroedinger analogy is fair. an accused perosn is in an indeterminate
state. An event occurs. e.g. a person is killed when and how do we know that a
"crime" has been committed? A person is a criminal when they have been convicted of
the crime. not before. The conviction may "relate back" to the date of the event for
some purposes of describing guilt , but without the conviction The individual is not
guilty of a crime. This raises the question of whether a crime can exist without a
criminal defendant to charge.
> :No, actually the issue is whehter they can prove you did it. that is what makes
> :a perosn gulty of a crime.
> No, that is what makes them CONVICTED of a crime.
Guilt either by plea or verdict precedes the judgement of conviction. When the judge
accepts the guilty plea or verdict the person is convicted.
a plea or a verdict can establish a juridical fact of guilt. a plea or conviciton
is considered a "proof"
> :No the answer is the prosecutor ahd an opportunity and all the evidence to
> :accuse bill clinton of perjury and declined. It wqas his call and ther eis not
> :the slightest evidence that he was corruptly influenced. the Difficulty of
> :proving the materiality of the statement or that it was known to be false and
> :that the question was asked precisely enouhg to bring the case may have
> :inflluenced the the prosecutor. Under your analyssi a peosn can be acquitted of
> :the crime and you would still be able to claim they were guilty. Since the
> :prosecutor unilaterally controls whehter the case is brought your approach would
> :be unethical.
> Did OJ do it?
OJ is a good example. It is clearly unethical for a prosecutor to say that OJ was
"guilty but got off" (the public can say what they want) I certainly believe that
OJ was involved, but it is equally clear that hs is not a guilty person.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of