| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 84766 | 2007-11-17 18:25:00 | Should Juries see previous convictions ? | Digby (677) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 612432 | 2007-11-19 18:56:00 | :lol: After 'the post of the year' what more can I say? Well nothing actually - I might have to wait till next year.... As for Deane - I may have got infraction points but hey I'm still here and you're still a .......... (hint : count the dots and read your PM from the other day) and I won't stick you on my ignore list yet because I find it funny reading your garbage. You just don't get it do you? :cool: |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 612433 | 2007-11-19 19:08:00 | :lol: After 'the post of the year' what more can I say? Well, you haven't really said a whole hell of a lot so far. You have yet to explain how previous convictions count as evidence. Anybody can mount an emotive argument. It takes a little more skill to contruct a straw-man argument and, at best, that's what you've done. Nothing you've said so far refutes any of my points. I do get it. People like you are on every internet forum - abusive from behind the safety of their keyboards. How about you refer to my reply to your PM the other day - the one where I invite you to meet me so I can behold your courage in being rude to my face? You never got back to me - I wonder why....? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612434 | 2007-11-19 19:14:00 | And you must admit that the average F1 poster would have a higher intelligence than ..... the top judges. Have you ever read a judicial decision? Here's one. (www.courtsofnz.govt.nz) See how you get on... |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612435 | 2007-11-19 19:21:00 | See how you get on... Help me out here, whats your point? Thats a pretty simple document, see how we get on with what? |
Metla (12) | ||
| 612436 | 2007-11-19 19:52:00 | ... But that's after they have been tried in open court under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty... Actually, anyone who has been charged with a crime undergoes some major penalties before it gets to Court - often in a year or more. These penalties can include: 1. Restrictions on freedom of movement - A night in the cells - A morning in Court and the bail room - Bailed to an address (or kept on remand) - Unable to leave the country - Several days during the course of the year where you have to appear before a judge (taking time off from work) - A Court hearing if you want to move (there goes another day) 2. Restrictions on personal rights: - Banned from drinking and socializing - Curfews 3. Financial cost: - Lawyers bills - Asset sales or mortgages if you have too many assets for legal aid (there are people who have been falsely accused of historical rape with bills of over $100,000 who have ended up in financial ruin even though they were found not guilty) 4. Emotional stress: - A year - or two - with the case clouding their thoughts - Difficulty with relationships - Depression - Suicidial thoughts The list goes on. And this is for someone who is still classed as innocent - and has a 50% chance of being found innocent if the stats are to be believed. Instead of removing the right to a fair trial it would be far more to the point to: 1. Speed up the Court process - a year or two is far too long 2. Create heavier and heavier penalties for subsequent offences. The guy who committed murder whilst on bail for murder got 9 years for the second one. What was it? Half sized sentence for a half sized person? |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612437 | 2007-11-19 19:56:00 | Hammurabian rules/laws let you know where you stand though. | SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 612438 | 2007-11-19 20:17:00 | The guy who committed murder whilst on bail for murder got 9 years for the second one. What was it? Half sized sentence for a half sized person? That ruling is incredibly stupid... they should hang that f**ker. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 612439 | 2007-11-19 20:26:00 | Well, you haven't really said a whole hell of a lot so far. You have yet to explain how previous convictions count as evidence. Anybody can mount an emotive argument. It takes a little more skill to contruct a straw-man argument and, at best, that's what you've done. Nothing you've said so far refutes any of my points. Oh the irony of your post, if only you could see it. Re-read the first post as to what this thread is about - it is not about convictions = evidence (there's your straw man argument), it is about disclosure of previous convictions. I'm not going to argue with you because there is no point and you don't seem to get it. But there is one thing I want to know. Let me put this question to you simply so you can understand it. Did you vote for or against the 'lets get tougher on criminals' referendum or not? 98% of us said 'yes'. Stop constructing straw-man arguments, and taking my points out of context and answer the question. Did you vote 'yes' or 'no' in that referendum, or did you not vote? |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 612440 | 2007-11-19 20:27:00 | That ruling is incredibly stupid... they should hang that f**ker. Deano will explain how it all works,such an understanding fellow.:eek: |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 612441 | 2007-11-19 20:38:00 | Oh the irony of your post, if only you could see it. Re-read the first post as to what this thread is about - it is not about convictions = evidence (there's your straw man argument), it is about disclosure of previous convictions. I'm not going to argue with you because there is no point and you don't seem to get it. But there is one thing I want to know. Let me put this question to you simply so you can understand it. Did you vote for or against the 'lets get tougher on criminals' referendum or not? 98% of us said 'yes'. Stop constructing straw-man arguments, and taking my points out of context and answer the question. Did you vote 'yes' or 'no' in that referendum, or did you not vote? Andrew,you are obviously are a QC at least,so don't take advantage of our Deano(bless him). |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||