[ExI] The Dogs of Immortality
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Wed Aug 6 05:54:32 UTC 2008
Damien S. writes
> Lee Corbin wrote: [
> > Olga writes
> > > But consider this: Let's just imagine that Woody Allen had been accused of
> > > murdering Mia Farrow, and a major piece of evidence had been found by a
> > > black detective. And let's say this black detective goes on the witness
> > > stand and he's asked if he ever referred to Jews as "kikes." He says no,
> > > never. Then a tape is discovered in which we find out the detective is a
> > > member of some racist black group that considers Jews not just kikes but
> > > monsters. ]
>> Well, hell yes! Who would give a damn about the murdered
>> woman in that case? People as well as our legal system,
>> understand priorities.
(where my sarcasm, I take it, was well understood by more people than just by Damien)
> I would think such a committed anti-statist as yourself would be more
> wary of sending messages to cops that they could get away with violating
> due process.
Judges and juries override the strict interpretation of the
law all the time, (way too much so, I'd say, at least for the
The police definitely should not violate due process. There
should always be penalties for doing so. But it is madness
to make the penalties include the freeing of criminals whose
guilt is completely evident by the (incorrectly gathered)
It sends terrible, terrible signals to criminals as well as the
public at large when murderers are freed on technicalities.
No wonder people in cities began locking their doors at
night during the sixties; such was the perception of the
efficacy of the criminal justice system, and the palpable and
very justified fear that even if criminals were apprehended,
they'd be likely to get off one way or another.
>> But what I don't understand is this. Usually when the jury reaches
>> the wrong verdict, as they did in the Rodney King case against
>> the police officers--- can you believe it, in the first trial the jury
>> acquitted the police officers? --- the government simply retries the
>> case in another jurisdiction. So why wasn't O. J. Simpson tried
> Well, there is this minor thing in the Constitution about no double
I thought so too. But my high school teacher explained it to
us back as early as 1965: American society may try a person
a second time by the expedient of trying him or her at a
different "level" of government. Therefore, if the state doesn't
convict you, the federal government can try you again.
This "double jeopardy" you speak of, is merely words on
papers when the proper political pressures and popular
wills are brought into it.
My high school teacher was actually ecstatic about it. He
reveled in the idea that we were becoming a "country
ruled by men, not by laws". Concurrently, on television,
"The Fugitive" was shown every week as having been a
victim of "blind justice", and they showed every week a
picture of the famous statue with Justice and her scales,
blindfolded. Great efforts were being made, then as now,
to transfer power to judges and away from literal written laws.
> Well, perhaps the civil rights laws (which were used to re-try the King
> officers in federal courts) aren't written so as to apply to private
> individuals or something. Wikipedia says the federal trial focused
> more on training than the videotape.
>> conspiracy, or, (when the government gets desperate) "attempting
> Need people to have a conspiracy.
>> to evade a guilty verdict", or whatever it takes to convict?
> ...now yo're being silly.
> -xx- Damien X-)
More information about the extropy-chat