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: Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :> :> The fact that he was not criminally charged and was instead given "other
> :> :> choices" does not change the fact that he committed a crime.
> :> :
> :> :nonsense.
> :> 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
> But only with regard to CONVICTION. There is no effect on the reality
> of whether they actually committed the crime or not. It is this
> latter claim of yours that I find simply astounding.
no for both factual and legal reasons. you called the dead person a "murder victim" tha
is begging the question as to whether a crime was committed. Second your analysis does
not suggest what happens when an "innocent" person is are they a criminal or not?
> :> :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"
> And neither alters what actually happened outside the courtroom, which
> seems to be where we differ.
a person may have committed an act, but not committed a crime. Our knowledge of whether
person committed an act may be imperfect finally our ability to prove that a person
committed an act may be limited all of which determine directly whether a crime was
committed Finally, as in the Nixon example a presidential pardon eliminates the crime
"nunc pro tunc" e.g. the person never committed the crime. you seem to believe that
crimes exist separate from convictions. They don't.
> :> 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.
> And we're back to words not meaning what they mean anymore. Did he do
> it? If your answer is 'yes', then he is guilty. He just wasn't
> PROVEN guilty.
no. Guilt is the outcome of the legal process. Its a special word which in the context
of the law is very specific. What the world does with the same word is up to them. .
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of