On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 06:08:18 -0800 (PST)
john b wrote:
The point in a free society is, the fact that I believe your opinions
are demented is irrelevant, just as the fact that you believe the
Troofers' opinions are demented is irrelevant. They get to be
citizens. So do you. The other way lie Uncle Joe and his sometime
friend.

The mentally handicapped are still citizens but they wouldn't be allowed
on a jury so whats the problem? All I'm suggesting is that theres a minimum
intelligence threshold for people who serve on one. How is that any different
to only allowing non colourblind people to drive a train or preventing
people with narcolepsy from holding a driving license for example?

You seem to assume that everyone should be treated equally all the time which
patently isn't true.

B2003

On 1 Mar 2011 14:18:56 GMT
Adrian wrote:
If they get taken in by the BS despite evidence to the contrary then
they're demonstrably NOT intelligent.

Riiight. So when you say you only want "intelligent" people on juries,
you mean you only want people who share your opinions.

Trying to infer stuff that isn't there again are we?

I might disagree with a lot of what Guardianistas believe but that doesn't
mean I think they're thick. Deluded maybe.

I think its only reasonable for both prosecution and defence that someone on a
jury has the mental faculties to understand the case otherwise you might just
as well toss a bloody coin for the outcome.

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

If they get taken in by the BS despite evidence to the contrary then
they're demonstrably NOT intelligent.

Riiight. So when you say you only want "intelligent" people on juries,
you mean you only want people who share your opinions.

Trying to infer stuff that isn't there again are we?

Not at all.

I might disagree with a lot of what Guardianistas believe but that
doesn't mean I think they're thick. Deluded maybe.

I think its only reasonable for both prosecution and defence that
someone on a jury has the mental faculties to understand the case
otherwise you might just as well toss a bloody coin for the outcome.

Take just one fine example. David Irving. Extremely irrational in the
face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence, yet clearly far from stupid.

On 1 Mar 2011 14:50:54 GMT
Adrian wrote:
I think its only reasonable for both prosecution and defence that
someone on a jury has the mental faculties to understand the case
otherwise you might just as well toss a bloody coin for the outcome.

Take just one fine example. David Irving. Extremely irrational in the
face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence, yet clearly far from stupid.

Or alternatively someone very rational and is well aware of the truth but
cynically decides to promote his own version of it for whatever political,
racist or maybe even just financial agenda he may have.

B2003

In message , d
writes
I think its only reasonable for both prosecution and defence that someone on a
jury has the mental faculties to understand the case otherwise you might just
as well toss a bloody coin for the outcome.
Having watched the O.J. Simpson trial on TV, tossing a coin may be just
as reliable.
--
Clive

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:52:22AM +0000, d wrote:

I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS

It's murder because it can not possibly be applied *only* to criminals,
given that we know that not all convictions are correct - indeed we
know that they *can't* all be correct seeing that we don't have total
surveillance and mind reading. I don't particularly have a problem
with killing certain classes of criminal, but I do insist that we know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they really are criminals.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

" In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's ... programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt. "
--Blair P. Houghton

On Wed, 02 Mar 2011 12:45:22 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:52:22AM +0000, d wrote:

I wasn't trying to advance the argument, it was simply an opinion. I find the
whole "state execution is murder and makes us no better than the criminals"
argument a load of specious BS

It's murder because it can not possibly be applied *only* to criminals,
given that we know that not all convictions are correct - indeed we

Its not murder because by definition murder is an illegal act. If something
has been sanctioned by a court then its not illegal. If people have a moral
objection to any sort of execution then fine, but calling it murder simply
to up the ante is childish.

know that they *can't* all be correct seeing that we don't have total
surveillance and mind reading. I don't particularly have a problem
with killing certain classes of criminal, but I do insist that we know
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they really are criminals.

As I've already said, the death penality should require a higher standard
of proof than is currently employed in a conviction but that doesn't mean
it shouldn't be used at all IMO.

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

As I've already said, the death penality should require a higher
standard of proof than is currently employed

Indeed.

Higher than beyond reasonable doubt.

Which can only mean "beyond unreasonable doubt". By which standard, the
9/11 bombers and Adolf Hitler (can I claim a Godwin exemption, since it
is relevant?) would not have met the bar, since there are _plenty_ of
doubters, albeit not reasonable.

On 2 Mar 2011 13:58:01 GMT
Adrian wrote:
Which can only mean "beyond unreasonable doubt". By which standard, the
9/11 bombers and Adolf Hitler (can I claim a Godwin exemption, since it
is relevant?) would not have met the bar, since there are _plenty_ of
doubters, albeit not reasonable.

Well if those types of doubters ever got onto a jury then I suppose it would
be too bad. But for most normal people the evidence against Hitler would be
absolutely rock solid.

And lets not forget, if he hadn't topped himself it was a 100% certainty he'd
have been executed anyway and I suspect even the most hand wringing bleeding
hearted of todays liberals wouldn't have batted an eyelid about it.

B2003

d gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

But for most normal people the evidence against Hitler
would be absolutely rock solid.

That's kinda the problem with your whole line of logic, though.

You want to raise the bar PAST "Beyond _Reasonable_ Doubt". That can ONLY
introduce UNREASONABLE doubt as a block to prosecution.