ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 12th June 2018, 07:36 AM   #641
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ah but here lies an important point: if it came from the mouth of the lead prosecutor on the case or from senior police officers (and if Pisa et al could assure/prove to their publications that it came from that type of source), then their primary motivation for fact-checking - to ensure that they had proper legal protection - was moot! Mignini and the senior police on the case clearly qualified as "trusted sources"; if the journalists subsequently got challenged on any of the "facts" that originated directly from those sources, they'd have more than adequate protection against any legal challenge provided they could demonstrate their source. And furthermore, they and their publications could hardly be besmirched reputationally either, since it's a very strong defence against such a charge to state "this is what a very senior figure in the investigation told me".

And I am highly confident that the likes of Mignini and the senior police on this case knew all of this very well. They knew that anything they leaked to pliant reporters such as Pisa would almost certainly end up, almost verbatim, in the papers and on TV within hours. It happens in other contexts all the time too; in politics in particular, senior figures regularly leak to selected journalists in the same knowledge that what they say will almost certainly get printed/broadcast, on account of the quality/credibility of the source. Again, no need to fact-check or double-source, because there's the ultimate defence of (e.g.) "someone very senior in government told me this directly".

Incidentally, this is one of several key reasons why the Knox and Sollecito "sides" would have found it disproportionately difficult (read: near impossible) to get their sides of the story into the media: nobody who spoke on their behalf would have qualified as a trusted source in the same way that the likes of Mignini and the police would have done. So nothing that anyone like Edda Mellas, Francesco Sollecito - or even the defence lawyers - might have said would have got through unchallenged or uncorroborated in the way that the off-the-record briefings from Mignini or the police did. In addition to that hurdle, of course, there were other significant hampering factors - including the rather "inconvenient" fact that Knox and Sollecito themselves were holed up in prison and unable to communicate directly, and the fact that the media really were not at all interested at that point (i.e. pre-Massei, during Massei, and up to 2011) in stories that were favourable to Knox and Sollecito. Rather, the preferred story was the one about the evil, sexy temptress and her weird, meek, pliable boyfriend. And furthermore, that was the story which presented by far the fewest potential legal difficulties: Knox and Sollecito were after all, at that point, either charged with a vicious sexually-aggravated murder or they stood convicted of that murder. And as any media lawyer will tell you, it's pretty difficult to libel a sex murderer!
This is exactly why I can see giving Pisa a pass on this (although not his careless attitude about the impact it had on Amanda and Raffaele) but NvdL has no such excuse. He's there, seven or eight years later, repeating things that have long since been proven to be incorrect or deliberate lies. Pisa might be a bottom feeder but NvdL is pond scum.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 07:49 AM   #642
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
A corollary to the guilters' claim that the police and prosecution never commit official misconduct (such as suppressing evidence of innocence and fabricating false evidence of guilt) is that, for the Knox - Sollecito case, the police and prosecution had no motivation to commit such misconduct.

However, the Marasca CSC panel motivation report makes very clear in its Section 4.1 that the police and prosecution did have such a motive:

The case generated an unusual media clamor that “led to a sudden acceleration of the investigations, in the frantic search for one or more guilty people to placate international opinion, and certainly did not help lead to the real truth. In homicides such as this (such pressure) affects not only the timing but also the competence and the correctness of the investigative activities.” In particular, such concerns relate to the forensic DNA methods used by the investigation, which must follow the recognized international scientific protocols required to avoid possible contamination and to assure that the DNA profile results obtained are credible and reliable.

For comparison, here is a federal (US) case charging a violation of rights by police in framing a teenager for burglaries in a small town in Florida that illustrates an alleged motive for the framing:

"The former police chief and two officers in Biscayne Park [Florida] face federal charges of framing a 16-year-old in four unsolved burglaries. The motivation, prosecutors charged Monday, was keeping a perfect score on crime statistics. ....
'The existence of this fictitious 100% clearance rate of reported burglaries was used by Atesiano to gain favor with elected officials and concerned citizens,' according to an indictment.

[Former police chief Raimundo] Atesiano, 53, now stands accused of encouraging the officers to arrest the teen in June 2013, "knowing that there was no evidence and no lawful basis to support such charges," prosecutors said after unsealing the indictment. ...."

Source: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...212948924.html
In the US there is a separation between law enforcement and prosecutors. Law enforcement must bring their case to the prosecutor and convince them they have a case. So while there is still motivation for law enforcement (desire to 'solve' a case) and prosecutor (desire to 'convict'), the separation of duties should (in theory) help innocent suspects from getting convicted. But in Italy, the prosecutor also can lead the investigation. So if the prosecutor gets it in his/her head that someone is guilty they can steer the investigation to ensure law enforcement and the courts get to the same conclusion. So to suggest Mignini, Stefanoni, eta al, had no motivation to be dishonest is wilful ignorance. There were numerous reasons, not least of which was media pressure and Mignini's own legal and PR issues.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 08:45 AM   #643
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
This is exactly why I can see giving Pisa a pass on this (although not his careless attitude about the impact it had on Amanda and Raffaele) but NvdL has no such excuse. He's there, seven or eight years later, repeating things that have long since been proven to be incorrect or deliberate lies. Pisa might be a bottom feeder but NvdL is pond scum.
Even a PGP, if being intellectually honest, can see that NvdL relies almost entirely on what he can find online in the media. Glancing through his books, you can't help but notice the numerous quotes from The Daily Mail, TJMK and TMofMK. He c&p's articles from the last two sites that are mainly speculative opinion pieces written by highly biased commenters. NvdL is not only a bad writer, he's a lazy writer. Any real writer would be embarrassed to be associated with his "books"...or should be.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 09:06 AM   #644
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13,508
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Even a PGP, if being intellectually honest, can see that NvdL relies almost entirely on what he can find online in the media. Glancing through his books, you can't help but notice the numerous quotes from The Daily Mail, TJMK and TMofMK. He c&p's articles from the last two sites that are mainly speculative opinion pieces written by highly biased commenters. NvdL is not only a bad writer, he's a lazy writer. Any real writer would be embarrassed to be associated with his "books"...or should be.
For the most part, they are. There is only one "PGP" I can recall who gives NvdL the time of day.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 04:38 PM   #645
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,771
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
In the US there is a separation between law enforcement and prosecutors. Law enforcement must bring their case to the prosecutor and convince them they have a case. So while there is still motivation for law enforcement (desire to 'solve' a case) and prosecutor (desire to 'convict'), the separation of duties should (in theory) help innocent suspects from getting convicted. But in Italy, the prosecutor also can lead the investigation. So if the prosecutor gets it in his/her head that someone is guilty they can steer the investigation to ensure law enforcement and the courts get to the same conclusion. So to suggest Mignini, Stefanoni, eta al, had no motivation to be dishonest is wilful ignorance. There were numerous reasons, not least of which was media pressure and Mignini's own legal and PR issues.
In Italy there is also a legal obligation on the prosecutor to prosecute a case if there is a suspicion of guilt. Prosecutors are obliged to prosecute in most cases. In contrast in the UK prosecutors have to say that prosecution is in the public interest (a bit of a political get out and seldom used), and that on the balance of the probabilities they can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (ie prosecutions should be successful in half the cases). In Italy the majority of cases brought by the prosecution should fail.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2018, 07:17 PM   #646
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
In Italy there is also a legal obligation on the prosecutor to prosecute a case if there is a suspicion of guilt. Prosecutors are obliged to prosecute in most cases. In contrast in the UK prosecutors have to say that prosecution is in the public interest (a bit of a political get out and seldom used), and that on the balance of the probabilities they can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (ie prosecutions should be successful in half the cases). In Italy the majority of cases brought by the prosecution should fail.
Your point is interesting. Italian prosecutors are required by Article 112 of the Italian Constitution to prosecute all crimes (assuming a suspect can be identified); it states: The public prosecutor has the obligation to institute criminal proceedings.

Italian law CPP Article 326 states: The public prosecutor and the criminal police, within their respective responsibilities, shall conduct the investigations necessary to decide on criminal prosecution [apparently meaning, on whether a crime has indeed been committed and who should be prosecuted if indeed there was a crime].

However, CPP Article 358 states: The public prosecutor shall carry out any activity necessary for the purposes referred to in Article 326 and shall also carry out ascertainments on the facts and circumstances in favor of the suspected person.

It is clear in the Knox - Sollecito case that Mignini and other prosecutors either failed to carry out the second part of CPP Article 358 or suppressed such ascertainments that were discovered, for example, in the DNA profile data. This would appear to be a violation of Italian procedural law.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:13 AM   #647
Welshman
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
A major component of the argument for guilt is that police and prosecution never suppress evidence of innocence nor fabricate false evidence of guilt. However, there are many cases from the US that clearly demonstrate such official misconduct by the police and/or prosecution, and it is clear in the Knox - Sollecito case that the Italian authorities suppressed evidence of innocence and misrepresented other non-inculpatory evidence as evidence of guilt.

Here is an example of police and prosecution knowingly suppressing evidence of innocence in a murder case in Cincinnati, Ohio.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/cin...-dna-evidence/

"Records obtained by Maxton’s [the person falsely accused of murder] lawyers and testimony at Maxton’s June 2016 trial made clear that the CPD [Cincinnati police department] knew about the DNA evidence. The lead detective on the case, Bill Hilbert, spoke with the DNA analyst on the same day the first DNA report was issued. And the official notification that Foggie’s [an alternative suspect] DNA was on the cola can was emailed by the lab to Det. Hilbert’s supervisor, Sgt. Jeff Gramke. Yet they suppressed the evidence and never told Maxton’s attorneys.

Maxton was in jail for a year before his case was tried. He was 26 years old and facing life in prison if convicted. He was offered a plea deal but turned it down because he knew he was innocent.

On the fifth day of trial Maxton’s attorneys, through questioning of a laboratory analyst who had been called by prosecutors to testify on another issue, uncovered the hidden evidence that the DNA on the dropped can ruled out Maxton and matched the alternative suspect, Foggie. The jury unanimously found Maxton not guilty of murder on June 2, 2016 and he was released."
The argument police/prosecutors are never corrupt, incompetent, are 100% ethical and have no reason to frame innocent people is completely wrong as numerous examples show. However, I can understand why PGP like to use this argument. If you wish to argue the case for guilt, the notion police/prosecutors are always ethical, honest, corruption never happens, police/prosecutors have no wish to frame innocent people and police/prosecutors will only prosecute if they have a solid case is a useful argument to fall back on because this notion means the possibility of people being wrongly convicted is unlikely.

Last edited by Welshman; 13th June 2018 at 01:15 AM.
Welshman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 03:04 AM   #648
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by Welshman View Post
The argument police/prosecutors are never corrupt, incompetent, are 100% ethical and have no reason to frame innocent people is completely wrong as numerous examples show. However, I can understand why PGP like to use this argument. If you wish to argue the case for guilt, the notion police/prosecutors are always ethical, honest, corruption never happens, police/prosecutors have no wish to frame innocent people and police/prosecutors will only prosecute if they have a solid case is a useful argument to fall back on because this notion means the possibility of people being wrongly convicted is unlikely.
Strawman. No-one has ever said that. In fact, TJMK has several articles about the miscarriage of justice and unfair systems.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 03:09 AM   #649
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by Planigale View Post
In Italy there is also a legal obligation on the prosecutor to prosecute a case if there is a suspicion of guilt. Prosecutors are obliged to prosecute in most cases. In contrast in the UK prosecutors have to say that prosecution is in the public interest (a bit of a political get out and seldom used), and that on the balance of the probabilities they can prove the case beyond reasonable doubt (ie prosecutions should be successful in half the cases). In Italy the majority of cases brought by the prosecution should fail.
The thing is, if you are wrongfully convicted in the UK, or the USA, it's usually a case of tough luck, as once the trial is over, that's it. Very few even are allowed an appeal. In the USA you can be jailed for life after 'three strikes' for minor misdemeanours.

At least in Italy you have an automatic right to take it all the way to Supreme Court, and even then, if you have 'fast-tracked' you can be out after sixteen years for Aggravated Murder, or even earlier if you get parole for good behaviour. For example, Rudy Guede.

So even the vilest offender has a light at the end of the tunnel.

Even Anders Brevit in Norway lives a life of luxury in his lifers prison cell.

In the USA he would have fried.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:22 AM   #650
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
The guilters continually make false assertions about the "automatic right of appeal" in Italy including even the automatic right to have an appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Cassation. In fact, the Supreme Court of Cassation is limited under Italian law to hear appeals that meet certain legal criteria, as specified in CPP Article 606. Very many cases brought to the CSC are rejected out of hand for not meeting the requirements of that article.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 08:40 AM   #651
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The thing is, if you are wrongfully convicted in the UK, or the USA, it's usually a case of tough luck, as once the trial is over, that's it. Very few even are allowed an appeal. In the USA you can be jailed for life after 'three strikes' for minor misdemeanours.

At least in Italy you have an automatic right to take it all the way to Supreme Court, and even then, if you have 'fast-tracked' you can be out after sixteen years for Aggravated Murder, or even earlier if you get parole for good behaviour. For example, Rudy Guede.

So even the vilest offender has a light at the end of the tunnel.

Even Anders Brevit in Norway lives a life of luxury in his lifers prison cell.

In the USA he would have fried.
Wrong. The three strike law refers to serious, violent felonies. Only California will consider misdemeanors but they must still be deemed violent offenses. Minor (i.e., non-violent) misdemeanors are NOT considered part of the three strike legislation.

So you think it's a good thing that Brevit received a sentence of only 21 years for killing 77 people? (that's one year for every 3.6 lives taken. That doesn't seem very equitable but what do I know). And no, in the US he would not have fried. In the US, people spend an average of over 15 years on death row before their executions are carried out. That means he'd likely be put to sleep (electrocution is only a secondary option in a few states and used only if the prisoner requests it. Mostly it's lethal injection now.) in 2027 or thereabouts.

I'm sure Meredith would be thrilled that poor Guede has a light at the end of his unreasonably short 16 year tunnel. To bad there's no light at the end of her tunnel.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 11:04 AM   #652
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
The guilters continually make false assertions about the "automatic right of appeal" in Italy including even the automatic right to have an appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Cassation. In fact, the Supreme Court of Cassation is limited under Italian law to hear appeals that meet certain legal criteria, as specified in CPP Article 606. Very many cases brought to the CSC are rejected out of hand for not meeting the requirements of that article.
Here are some numbers on the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) cases rejected for inadmissibility - failure to satisfy the requirements of CPP Article 606.

According to a report (translated into English by the Italian judiciary) by the President of the CSC, there were 56,642 new criminal cases submitted to the CSC in 2017. A total of 56,760 cases were closed during 2017 - some of these were cases submitted in 2016 (or perhaps earlier). Of these closed cases, 48.6% were closed for not meeting requirements to be reviewed by the appeal process, by a procedure in accordance with CPP Articles 610 and 611. Closing such cases is done by winnowing out such cases at the preliminary review stage, in chambers, after which a final decision to close is given by the 7th Chamber.

Source: http://www.cortedicassazione.it/cort...entId=ECS20473

See the last of the 4 PDFs listed, the link ending in "testo in inglise". Page 14, Section 13.

Last edited by Numbers; 13th June 2018 at 11:06 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 12:23 PM   #653
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Here are some numbers on the Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) cases rejected for inadmissibility - failure to satisfy the requirements of CPP Article 606.

According to a report (translated into English by the Italian judiciary) by the President of the CSC, there were 56,642 new criminal cases submitted to the CSC in 2017. A total of 56,760 cases were closed during 2017 - some of these were cases submitted in 2016 (or perhaps earlier). Of these closed cases, 48.6% were closed for not meeting requirements to be reviewed by the appeal process, by a procedure in accordance with CPP Articles 610 and 611. Closing such cases is done by winnowing out such cases at the preliminary review stage, in chambers, after which a final decision to close is given by the 7th Chamber.

Source: http://www.cortedicassazione.it/cort...entId=ECS20473

See the last of the 4 PDFs listed, the link ending in "testo in inglise". Page 14, Section 13.
Further information provided by the First President of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in his report to the President of the Republic of Italy:

"4. ...[T]he Court of Cassation - being at the apex of the Italian court system -
has the task of interpreting the law in line with its Constitution and in compliance with the European sources of law. The Court, through the interpretation and enforcement of the principles laid down in the Constitution, can delineate the legal positions of individuals and give concrete expression to the fundamental rights of persons.

The interpretation and structuring of constitutional rules is enhanced and even increased by enforcing national law in the context of European Union legislation. ....

5. The dialogue between the Court of Cassation and the Court of Justice of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] is of a different nature.

The direct and immediate enforcement in the domestic legal system of the principles contained in the ECHR rulings requires specific legislative instruments. In addition, when such instruments are lacking, the role of a judge is making the interpretation of domestic law the closest possible to the principles of the ECHR. ...." Page 5

Thus, it can be inferred that the Marasca CSC judgment acquitted Knox and Sollecito of the murder/rape charges in order to conform to ECHR principles. It remains to be seen how the ECHR treats Knox's conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. Based on ECHR case-law, the conviction will be declared unfair, and Italy will be obligated, at a minimum, to retry the case.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 01:34 PM   #654
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The thing is, if you are wrongfully convicted in the UK, or the USA, it's usually a case of tough luck, as once the trial is over, that's it. Very few even are allowed an appeal. In the USA you can be jailed for life after 'three strikes' for minor misdemeanours.

At least in Italy you have an automatic right to take it all the way to Supreme Court, and even then, if you have 'fast-tracked' you can be out after sixteen years for Aggravated Murder, or even earlier if you get parole for good behaviour. For example, Rudy Guede.

So even the vilest offender has a light at the end of the tunnel.

Even Anders Brevit in Norway lives a life of luxury in his lifers prison cell.

In the USA he would have fried.
Not necessarily. Not all states even have the death penalty. About half of the 50 states do not.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:09 PM   #655
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Wrong. The three strike law refers to serious, violent felonies. Only California will consider misdemeanors but they must still be deemed violent offenses. Minor (i.e., non-violent) misdemeanors are NOT considered part of the three strike legislation.

So you think it's a good thing that Brevit received a sentence of only 21 years for killing 77 people? (that's one year for every 3.6 lives taken. That doesn't seem very equitable but what do I know). And no, in the US he would not have fried. In the US, people spend an average of over 15 years on death row before their executions are carried out. That means he'd likely be put to sleep (electrocution is only a secondary option in a few states and used only if the prisoner requests it. Mostly it's lethal injection now.) in 2027 or thereabouts.

I'm sure Meredith would be thrilled that poor Guede has a light at the end of his unreasonably short 16 year tunnel. To bad there's no light at the end of her tunnel.
Hobson's choice <shrug> call it frying or lethal injection: "frying" is the quickest shorthand. I thought I already explained that.

Re Anders Brevit: whilst populist sentiment is that he should be hanged, drawn and quartered, OTOH it is admirable that the Norwegian state doesn't see itself as an executioner.

As for Guede, lucky Amanda and Raff to so blatantly get away with it, and then have the cheek to run Italy down.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:11 PM   #656
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not necessarily. Not all states even have the death penalty. About half of the 50 states do not.
Hobson's choice again: be fried or spend your whole life in prison until you die.

The European system is far more humane, so your knocking Italy's system is ironic.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:22 PM   #657
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Strawman. No-one has ever said that. In fact, TJMK has several articles about the miscarriage of justice and unfair systems.
You've been asked in this very thread to name a single established wrongful conviction you agree with in the modern era by a modern court and have never done so.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:24 PM   #658
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hobson's choice <shrug> call it frying or lethal injection: "frying" is the quickest shorthand. I thought I already explained that.

Re Anders Brevit: whilst populist sentiment is that he should be hanged, drawn and quartered, OTOH it is admirable that the Norwegian state doesn't see itself as an executioner.

As for Guede, lucky Amanda and Raff to so blatantly get away with it, and then have the cheek to run Italy down.


What did Knox and Sollecito "blatantly get away with", Vixen?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:27 PM   #659
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Not necessarily. Not all states even have the death penalty. About half of the 50 states do not.
The subject of the death penalty in the US is complex and objectively not at all germane to the case of Knox and Sollecito.

What is true and germane is that Italy has no death penalty, and in fact, the death penalty is not allowed under law, that is, the European Convention of Human Rights and its protocols, and as implemented in the laws of each of the Council of Europe states.

In terms of the US statistics on the death penalty, 31 states, the federal government, and the US military allow, under law, the death penalty for certain crimes. There are official moratoriums on the death penalty in 8 of the 31 states. Another 6 states apparently have de facto moratoriums.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita..._United_States
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:33 PM   #660
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,014
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
What did Knox and Sollecito "blatantly get away with", Vixen?
They blatantly got away with having a knife carrying burglar stranger come to their crime scene, douse himself in the victim's blood and implant his DNA in her genitals, then leave the only bloody prints around and trailing away from the body, and decide to never testify against them while he sits in prison as the sole convicted murderer and rapist. This is such a simple but genius plan I can't believe prison isn't full of nothing but idiot patsies for bored student killers.
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 02:36 PM   #661
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,014
Scott Peterson *while studying the Kercher case*: Wow, I should've had the Golden State Killer come to my crime scene and walk around in my wife's blood. Darn! Why Didn't I think of that! It's the chair for me
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 03:41 PM   #662
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hobson's choice <shrug> call it frying or lethal injection: "frying" is the quickest shorthand. I thought I already explained that.

Re Anders Brevit: whilst populist sentiment is that he should be hanged, drawn and quartered, OTOH it is admirable that the Norwegian state doesn't see itself as an executioner.

As for Guede, lucky Amanda and Raff to so blatantly get away with it, and then have the cheek to run Italy down.
So you were flat-out wrong about "three strike" legislation in the US. Will you admit that?

You continuously try to suggest that in the US murderers are routinely "fried". The truth is, since 1976 there have only been an average of 35 people executed each year. A very low percentage of murderers and other violent criminals find their way to death row, and then the vast majority of them never get executed (way less than half).

So you think allowing Brevit to begin enjoying his life again by age 54 is "admirable" despite him having slaughtered 77 innocent people. Do I have this correct?

Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted. This is about Guede, and how you think it's wonderful that there is a light at the end of the tunnel for him. Apparently your empathy only extends to Guede and not Meredith and her family. Personally, had Meredith been my daughter, nothing short of life in prison would have done. 16 years with a chance of early release is completely unacceptable.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2018, 03:57 PM   #663
sept79
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 311
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
.
.
.
Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted. This is about Guede, and how you think it's wonderful that there is a light at the end of the tunnel for him. Apparently your empathy only extends to Guede and not Meredith and her family. Personally, had Meredith been my daughter, nothing short of life in prison would have done. 16 years with a chance of early release is completely unacceptable.

And what's to say that he won't offend again? I'm not for one time murderers to be walking the streets again.
sept79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:17 AM   #664
Stacyhs
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,307
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Hobson's choice again: be fried or spend your whole life in prison until you die.

The European system is far more humane, so your knocking Italy's system is ironic.
You made a false statement and I corrected it with the facts. You do know that not all murder convictions in the US end up on death row or even in prison for life, don't you? My mother's cousin's son killed his wife with a rifle after waiting outside her place of work for 3 hours. He served three..yes, three...years in prison. Way too little time as even his own mother agreed,
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 11:32 AM   #665
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You made a false statement and I corrected it with the facts. You do know that not all murder convictions in the US end up on death row or even in prison for life, don't you? My mother's cousin's son killed his wife with a rifle after waiting outside her place of work for 3 hours. He served three..yes, three...years in prison. Way too little time as even his own mother agreed,
It should not be surprising that the posts of guilters contain numerous falsehoods. The reason for the many - seemingly countless - falsehoods is, in large part, because the guilters have no valid arguments to support their claims that Knox and Sollecito are somehow involved in the murder/rape of Kercher.

Many guilter statements are diversionary slut-shaming, anti-American tirades, or other nonsense irrelevant to their claims.

The guilters continually misstate Italian law, for example, by claiming that "appeals are automatic in Italy". A defendant (accused) provisionally convicted must file an appeal within a legally set time-limit of 45 days, or their appeal will not be accepted. That is hardly "automatic". While a defendant provisionally convicted by a second-level court may file an appeal of the conviction to the CSC, the CSC will reject that appeal application without hearing it if the time-limit is not met or if the appeal grounds do not satisfy the requirements of CPP Article 606. In 2017, according to an official report by the President of the CSC, 48.6% of appeal applications were closed without a hearing for failure to meet the requirements.

Last edited by Numbers; 14th June 2018 at 12:48 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 01:55 PM   #666
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,038
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Wrong. The three strike law refers to serious, violent felonies. Only California will consider misdemeanors but they must still be deemed violent offenses. Minor (i.e., non-violent) misdemeanors are NOT considered part of the three strike legislation.

So you think it's a good thing that Brevit received a sentence of only 21 years for killing 77 people? (that's one year for every 3.6 lives taken. That doesn't seem very equitable but what do I know). And no, in the US he would not have fried. In the US, people spend an average of over 15 years on death row before their executions are carried out. That means he'd likely be put to sleep (electrocution is only a secondary option in a few states and used only if the prisoner requests it. Mostly it's lethal injection now.) in 2027 or thereabouts.

I'm sure Meredith would be thrilled that poor Guede has a light at the end of his unreasonably short 16 year tunnel. To bad there's no light at the end of her tunnel.

31 States in the US have the death penalty and one's likelihood of being executed for a capital crime is minuscule. Amanda's home State and mine technically has the death penalty but incredibly few people have been sentenced to death and very few of them are ever executed. Since 1964 a total of 5 people have been executed, one of which did everything in his power to be executed. Even one of America's most prolific serial killers Garry Ridgeway was not executed, but instead gets 3 square a day in a Washington prison.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:42 PM   #667
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You made a false statement and I corrected it with the facts. You do know that not all murder convictions in the US end up on death row or even in prison for life, don't you? My mother's cousin's son killed his wife with a rifle after waiting outside her place of work for 3 hours. He served three..yes, three...years in prison. Way too little time as even his own mother agreed,
It's often the way that domestic violence is treated more leniently than other types.

It is one of those shocking facts.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:43 PM   #668
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Wrong. The three strike law refers to serious, violent felonies. Only California will consider misdemeanors but they must still be deemed violent offenses. Minor (i.e., non-violent) misdemeanors are NOT considered part of the three strike legislation.

So you think it's a good thing that Brevit received a sentence of only 21 years for killing 77 people? (that's one year for every 3.6 lives taken. That doesn't seem very equitable but what do I know). And no, in the US he would not have fried. In the US, people spend an average of over 15 years on death row before their executions are carried out. That means he'd likely be put to sleep (electrocution is only a secondary option in a few states and used only if the prisoner requests it. Mostly it's lethal injection now.) in 2027 or thereabouts.

I'm sure Meredith would be thrilled that poor Guede has a light at the end of his unreasonably short 16 year tunnel. To bad there's no light at the end of her tunnel.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was a 'good thing'. Like most people, I suspect, I would be happy to see him burn in Hell. However, the state of Norway has shown remarkable restraint.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:45 PM   #669
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by sept79 View Post
And what's to say that he won't offend again? I'm not for one time murderers to be walking the streets again.
That's for the parole board to assess.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 02:48 PM   #670
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
It should not be surprising that the posts of guilters contain numerous falsehoods. The reason for the many - seemingly countless - falsehoods is, in large part, because the guilters have no valid arguments to support their claims that Knox and Sollecito are somehow involved in the murder/rape of Kercher.

Many guilter statements are diversionary slut-shaming, anti-American tirades, or other nonsense irrelevant to their claims.

The guilters continually misstate Italian law, for example, by claiming that "appeals are automatic in Italy". A defendant (accused) provisionally convicted must file an appeal within a legally set time-limit of 45 days, or their appeal will not be accepted. That is hardly "automatic". While a defendant provisionally convicted by a second-level court may file an appeal of the conviction to the CSC, the CSC will reject that appeal application without hearing it if the time-limit is not met or if the appeal grounds do not satisfy the requirements of CPP Article 606. In 2017, according to an official report by the President of the CSC, 48.6% of appeal applications were closed without a hearing for failure to meet the requirements.
It's an automatic right. Obviously it has to be under a point of law and within the time limit. I thought that was a given.

Perhaps you would like an essay on every word used within a post?

A definition of 'post' perhaps?

Or a definition of definition? Hmmm?

You lead the way.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 04:35 PM   #671
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It's an automatic right. Obviously it has to be under a point of law and within the time limit. I thought that was a given.

Perhaps you would like an essay on every word used within a post?

A definition of 'post' perhaps?

Or a definition of definition? Hmmm?

You lead the way.

No. Your use of the word "automatic" clearly implied that there were no conditions placed upon the appeal - i.e. that any and every person convicted of a more serious criminal offence in Italy could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, regardless of the merit (or otherwise) of their appeal.

Take the following example to illustrate the point: "Once Mr Smith reaches his 65th Birthday, he automatically receives a free bus pass." If you now say "Oh but I thought it was a given that Mr Smith also has to demonstrate that his mobility is sufficiently impaired as to require a free bus pass", then that's a contradiction of the original statement.

Just as you have now contradicted yourself with your "it's a given" weaseling.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 04:42 PM   #672
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it was a 'good thing'. Like most people, I suspect, I would be happy to see him burn in Hell. However, the state of Norway has shown remarkable restraint.

But then therefore this "restraint" shown by Norway must, by definition, be - in your eyes - a very bad and undesirable thing. After all, your personal preference is that Breivik (note the correct spelling) should "burn in Hell".

Not for the first time, I (and, I imagine, many more here) am more than a little confused at your apparent pick-and-choose approach to an issue, with huge inherent internal contradictions. In this instance, you're simultaneously attacking those states of the US for using the death penalty, while wishing for a mass murderer in another country to "burn in Hell", while applauding progressive leniency in other criminal justice systems (most notably, of course, Italy). It's almost as though you flip-flop your opinion to suit whatever you require your "argument" to be. Surely not.......?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:10 PM   #673
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,364
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. Your use of the word "automatic" clearly implied that there were no conditions placed upon the appeal - i.e. that any and every person convicted of a more serious criminal offence in Italy could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, regardless of the merit (or otherwise) of their appeal.

Take the following example to illustrate the point: "Once Mr Smith reaches his 65th Birthday, he automatically receives a free bus pass." If you now say "Oh but I thought it was a given that Mr Smith also has to demonstrate that his mobility is sufficiently impaired as to require a free bus pass", then that's a contradiction of the original statement.

Just as you have now contradicted yourself with your "it's a given" weaseling.

As you point out in this case, guilters commonly redefine the meaning of words when their misrepresentations or falsehoods are challenged by disclosure of real facts.

An "automatic appeal" would either require no action at all, or no specific filing of legal grounds of appeal, by the appellant. Italian courts certainly require specific legal grounds for an appeal, and there are by law limitations of what these grounds may be for an appeal to the CSC, as set in CPP Article 606. Furthermore, there are general rules set for all appeals by law, in accordance with CPP Article 568. According to CPP Article 581, the specific grounds for the appeal (de facto and de jure) must be given in a written application. Depending on the type of court proceeding being appealed, there is a time limit of 15, 30, or 45 days for the appeal document to be filed with the court for it to be allowed consideration.

Here's an extract from a statement by the American Bar Association (a private but well-known association of US lawyers); of course, they are referring to US legal systems:

"Appeals

A popular misconception is that cases are always appealed. Not often does a losing party have an automatic right of appeal. There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal—an alleged material error in the trial—not just the fact that the losing party didn’t like the verdict. ...."

Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...k/appeals.html

Last edited by Numbers; 14th June 2018 at 05:20 PM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:28 PM   #674
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
As you point out in this case, guilters commonly redefine the meaning of words when their misrepresentations or falsehoods are challenged by disclosure of real facts.

An "automatic appeal" would either require no action at all, or no specific filing of legal grounds of appeal, by the appellant. Italian courts certainly require specific legal grounds for an appeal, and there are by law limitations of what these grounds may be for an appeal to the CSC, as set in CPP Article 606. Furthermore, there are general rules set for all appeals by law, in accordance with CPP Article 568. According to CPP Article 581, the specific grounds for the appeal (de facto and de jure) must be given in a written application. Depending on the type of court proceeding being appealed, there is a time limit of 15, 30, or 45 days for the appeal document to be filed with the court for it to be allowed consideration.

Here's an extract from a statement by the American Bar Association (a private but well-known association of US lawyers); of course, they are referring to US legal systems:

"Appeals

A popular misconception is that cases are always appealed. Not often does a losing party have an automatic right of appeal. There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal—an alleged material error in the trial—not just the fact that the losing party didn’t like the verdict. ...."

Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...k/appeals.html

Yes.

Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, in most (if not all) US states which have the death penalty, all those convicted of death penalty offences DO indeed have an automatic right to appeal - this was clearly introduced as another attempt to safeguard against the possibility of wrongful convictions when the punishment stakes were so high (and, of course, ultimately irreversible).

And regardless of all of this, this thread is not about comparing the criminal justice and incarceration policies of different countries. It's a classic misdirection in any argument (and a logical fallacy to boot) to try to argue "You are complaining about X, but I don't see you complaining about (a totally unrelated) Y which I argue is worse than X" Whether or not there are systemic failings in, for example, the US or UK justice systems (and I'd argue that there are significant imperfections in each, and a few genuine failings), that's effectively irrelevant to any debate about the Knox/Sollecito trials process. And BOY are there systemic failings and imperfections in the Italian system - as well as failings specific to this trial process that were aided and abetted by the systemic problems.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:31 PM   #675
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. Your use of the word "automatic" clearly implied that there were no conditions placed upon the appeal - i.e. that any and every person convicted of a more serious criminal offence in Italy could appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, regardless of the merit (or otherwise) of their appeal.

Take the following example to illustrate the point: "Once Mr Smith reaches his 65th Birthday, he automatically receives a free bus pass." If you now say "Oh but I thought it was a given that Mr Smith also has to demonstrate that his mobility is sufficiently impaired as to require a free bus pass", then that's a contradiction of the original statement.

Just as you have now contradicted yourself with your "it's a given" weaseling.

Mr S. is automatically entitled to a bus pass when he is 65. Contained within this sentence is an assumption that you are intelligent enough to realise that Mr Smith has to apply for it.

Likewise, it is assumed Numbers is not a moron and needs telling that defendants need to apply for an appeal. And in Italy they do have that automatic right. In the UK and USA you have a right of appeal but no automatic right to a hearing, as in Italy (ceteris paribus the trial is over and you are appealing under the correct section and you submit your appeal through the right channels, in the correct format, on the right form and within the right time limit).

Why Numbers wants to have all of this explained in great detail every time the automatic appeal in Italy is mentioned strikes me as his (a) having a very short memory, or (b) his simply being obtuse and vexatious.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 14th June 2018 at 05:34 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:37 PM   #676
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Yes.

Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, in most (if not all) US states which have the death penalty, all those convicted of death penalty offences DO indeed have an automatic right to appeal - this was clearly introduced as another attempt to safeguard against the possibility of wrongful convictions when the punishment stakes were so high (and, of course, ultimately irreversible).

And regardless of all of this, this thread is not about comparing the criminal justice and incarceration policies of different countries. It's a classic misdirection in any argument (and a logical fallacy to boot) to try to argue "You are complaining about X, but I don't see you complaining about (a totally unrelated) Y which I argue is worse than X" Whether or not there are systemic failings in, for example, the US or UK justice systems (and I'd argue that there are significant imperfections in each, and a few genuine failings), that's effectively irrelevant to any debate about the Knox/Sollecito trials process. And BOY are there systemic failings and imperfections in the Italian system - as well as failings specific to this trial process that were aided and abetted by the systemic problems.

The same conditions apply. It has to be done correctly.

The appeal is between thirteen to fifteen stages. It includes admitting your guilt, showing remorse and apologising to your victim's family.

I wish the Kercher trial could have been in the USA death penalty state, perhaps Texas, as I would just LOVE to hear Knox and Sollecito do all of the above.

Even then, it is still a decision to be made by a panel.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:45 PM   #677
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,480
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The same conditions apply. It has to be done correctly.

The appeal is between thirteen to fifteen stages. It includes admitting your guilt, showing remorse and apologising to your victim's family.

I wish the Kercher trial could have been in the USA death penalty state, perhaps Texas, as I would just LOVE to hear Knox and Sollecito do all of the above.

Even then, it is still a decision to be made by a panel.


No. You're confusing a criminal appeal with an application for parole. Read my post again, properly.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:47 PM   #678
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
But then therefore this "restraint" shown by Norway must, by definition, be - in your eyes - a very bad and undesirable thing. After all, your personal preference is that Breivik (note the correct spelling) should "burn in Hell".

Not for the first time, I (and, I imagine, many more here) am more than a little confused at your apparent pick-and-choose approach to an issue, with huge inherent internal contradictions. In this instance, you're simultaneously attacking those states of the US for using the death penalty, while wishing for a mass murderer in another country to "burn in Hell", while applauding progressive leniency in other criminal justice systems (most notably, of course, Italy). It's almost as though you flip-flop your opinion to suit whatever you require your "argument" to be. Surely not.......?
As you seem to be in a state of bewilderment, let me make my views clear. I believe the most important thing is to reach a fair and true verdict. I see no merit in letting a guilty person go free or an innocent one declared guilty. I do not see that a guilty person with a clever lawyer getting away scot free with a crime a great victory at all, as you obviously do.

OTOH serious offenders (aside from the crimes so heinous, they are beyond the pale, such as serial killers and mass murderers) can and do reform, especially if the crimes is committed during youth. Therefore I do not agree with life without parole, as is common in the USA, because there should always be hope of reform. I am sure we have all done things, no matter how trivial, that we genuinely regret later and want to make amends.

As for burning in Hell, well, that will come at the Last Judgement. We on earth can only do our best to make society a safe place for the community. Judgement belongs to the Lord God almighty.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:49 PM   #679
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,765
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No. You're confusing a criminal appeal with an application for parole. Read my post again, properly.
No. I am answering your post which is about APPEALING AGAINST A DEATH PENALTY.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2018, 05:57 PM   #680
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,480
[quote]
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Mr S. is automatically entitled to a bus pass when he is 65. Contained within this sentence is an assumption that you are intelligent enough to realise that Mr Smith has to apply for it.

Again, try reading my post more carefully. I wrote that if you add that Mr Smith must ALSO first prove his impaired mobility before receiving a bus pass, then the original statement - "Mr Smith automatically receives a bus pass when he reaches the age of 65" - is no longer accurate. And that's what's analogous to the need to have a valid point in law to receive an appeal in Italy (thereby meaning that an appeal is not "automatic").


Quote:
Likewise, it is assumed Numbers is not a moron and needs telling that defendants need to apply for an appeal. And in Italy they do have that automatic right. In the UK and USA you have a right of appeal but no automatic right to a hearing

You really shouldn't write about things of which you have little or no understanding. In both the UK and the USA (death penalty convictions aside), you do not have a right of appeal. You have the right to apply for appeal. That's a very different thing (and it's absolutely not just a question of semantics). Your application for appeal will be considered (usually by a judge), and it will then be determined whether you actually do have sufficient grounds for appeal - at which point you will be granted leave to appeal.



Quote:
as in Italy (ceteris paribus the trial is over and you are appealing under the correct section and you submit your appeal through the right channels, in the correct format, on the right form and within the right time limit).

No. You still need grounds in law to appeal. (And "ceteris paribus"? Again? Really? What does its use here even add to your post? I suppose at least you've learned how to spell it properly now......)



Quote:
Why Numbers wants to have all of this explained in great detail every time the automatic appeal in Italy is mentioned strikes me as his (a) having a very short memory, or (b) his simply being obtuse and vexatious.

Well, given that it's actually you who needs to have all of this explained to you every time, I'd say "physician, heal thyself".
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.