From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 14:41:59 +0800
To: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Subject: Re: active practice in America
In-Reply-To: <199609290133.UAA00319@smoke.suba.com>
Message-ID: <199609290438.WAA23813@infowest.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


In <199609290133.UAA00319@smoke.suba.com>, on 09/28/96
   at 08:33 PM, snow <snow@smoke.suba.com> said:


A Person going by the name Attila said:


>         to put it another way: in criminal procedings: I would rather

>be considered guilty, until proven innocent; than I would be

>presumed innocent, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.


     If you were the person being _tried_ for a crime, you would rather have

to prove that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY have commited the crime as opposed to

having to have the government PROVE that you DID DO it?



        you bet --the objective of the defense is to cast aspersions
    on the government prosecuters --in other words, create that
    doubt.  you do not need to prove your innocence unconditionally,
    just "taint" the prosecuter a bit.  however, in many cases you are
    guaranteed a trial by a jury of your peers.

        as for peers --look at OJ, and the reverse weighting of the
    Santa Monica jury v. downtown.


>    a nation whch can base a conviction on conspiracy to commit a

>crime, or permits circumstantial evidence to close the gap towards

>'beyond a reasonable doubt,'  has lost any pretense of understand-

> ing the heritage of common law: the Magna Carta.


      Of that, there is no denying.

        the example I have always used:

            three men were drinking in a bar across the street from a
        ripe looking bank.  they sit there and plot a knockoff.  one
        gets stinking drunk and passes out on the floor.  the other
        two go across the street to be arrested for the attempted
        heist.
            the police arrest the drunk on the floor. why?
            "conspiracy to commit the crime!"  and the penalty is the
        same: 7-20 years in the federal slam.

            --unless you are socially disadvantaged and claim heroin
        addiction; then you make it to the street in as little as 18
        months and wipe the tail within 7 years, not 20.  the rule was
        the offender must be less than 25, it may have been raised.

            or, you could hire an expensive member of the boys' club
        and might trade someone elses body for your freedom....

        that's justice in Amerika, folks!   you like it, right?