wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=uk+murder+guilty+pleas&sourceid=navcl ient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2Buk +-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0cc530c3619

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:31:35 +0000
Clive wrote:
In message , d
writes
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt. There
are cases where a weak person will break down under questioning and
admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where only in the light of
Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.
Capital punishment is State Murder,
Give it a rest with all the right-on hyperbole you wet lettuce.
it's no more than "An eye for an eye".
And? Whats wrong with that? It certainly prevents reoffending and it
provides closure for the victims relatives.
Proof is never absolute.
Total BS.
Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.

What should I discuss it? "Proof is never absolute" was such a ludicrous
statement that it wasn't worth wasting time. As for the rest of your post,
just standard issue libtard drivel.

B2003

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:15 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=u...=navcl ient-f
&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2B
k+-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0c
530c3619

Oh FFS , did I need to write it out in full so the class dunces can understand?

No one is going to admit to murder or rape if they didn't do it (apart from a
few head cases but who gives a **** about them anyway) - given that he was
talking about weak people breaking down under questioning I'd have thought
the meaning was obvious.

Of course some people admit guilt if they've done it, theres dambing evidence
in front of them and they can get a lighter sentence if they please guilty.

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

Proof is never absolute.

Total BS.

Being able to discuss, isn't one of your strong points. Note, not a
question.

What should I discuss it? "Proof is never absolute" was such a ludicrous
statement that it wasn't worth wasting time.

OK, great.

So give us an example of _absolute_ proof. Not just "beyond reasonable
doubt", but _absolute_.

It doesn't exist.

There can _always_ be doubt injected into things. It might not be
_reasonable_ to do so. But it can. Look at the various historical
revisionists/conspiracy-theorists - the moon landings, the holocaust,
9/11.

wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:15 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=u...=navcl ient-f
&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2B
k+-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0c
530c3619

Oh FFS , did I need to write it out in full so the class dunces can
understand?

No one is going to admit to murder or rape if they didn't do it
(apart from a few head cases but who gives a **** about them anyway)
- given that he was talking about weak people breaking down under
questioning I'd have thought
the meaning was obvious.

Of course some people admit guilt if they've done it, theres dambing
evidence in front of them and they can get a lighter sentence if they
please guilty.

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so the
state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt. Just
because someone did it, doesn't mean it's easy to prove. And juries
would be more reluctant to convict (not every juror thinks like you).

Result: more murderers would be found not guilty and released
immediately, rather than in, say, 15 years. Another well thought-out
Boltar plan.

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so the
state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

"Adrian" wrote in message

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so
the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and they
hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please guilty.
Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence, the judge can
set the minimum time to be served. They may also be able to regotiate a
manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a death sentence, why
would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so
the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and they
hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please guilty.
Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence, the judge can
set the minimum time to be served. They may also be able to regotiate a
manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a death sentence, why
would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Sorry, where did we move from discussing the requirements for conviction
to the effects of different penalties?

"Adrian" wrote in message

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty,
so the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable
doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet
people plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and
they hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please
guilty. Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence,
the judge can set the minimum time to be served. They may also be
able to regotiate a manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a
death sentence, why would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Sorry, where did we move from discussing the requirements for
conviction to the effects of different penalties?

They're closely linked -- plea bargaining makes convictions much easier.
Many crimes are hard to prove, but criminals will plead guilty to a
lesser crime to avoid the risk of a more severe penalty.

"Recliner" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so
the state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt.

Umm, yes. That's what the prosecution has to do currently. Yet people
plead guilty.

Yup, because they are pretty sure they'll be convicted anyway, and
they hope to get a lower sentence if they show remorse and please
guilty. Although murder always leads to a mandatory life sentence, the
judge can set the minimum time to be served. They may also be able to
regotiate a manslaughter plea. But if there was a risk of a death
sentence, why would anyone who isn't suicidal plead guilty?

Sorry, where did we move from discussing the requirements for
conviction to the effects of different penalties?

They're closely linked

Don't be so ****ing stupid.

plea bargaining makes convictions much easier.

Ooh, look, another red herring thrown in to try to confuse the issue - or
is it just because you don't actually understand it?

Many crimes are hard to prove

If there's insufficient evidence to prove the crime, then don't charge it
in the first place. Simples.

B'sides, we don't have "states" over here, and the government (if that's
what you mean by "state") don't decide the charge or run the prosecution.
And we don't (officially, legally) do plea-bargaining over here.