posted on August 17, 2002 03:07:00 PM new
The justice system is unfairly balanced in favor of the wealthy who can afford competent representation.
The plea bargain should be acceptable in this case, however. Moccabee pled guilty and now he is going to jail for the rest of his life. A trial, held only to satisfy the need for revenge, would lead to a death sentence - another problem with justice in this country.
Most of the world agrees that capital punishment is a crime.
posted on August 17, 2002 06:29:09 PM new Families furious...Court accepts plea bargain...
From the article.....
NewsChannel 4's Beth Dal Ponte reported that families of the victims not only expressed anger towards Moccabee, but toward the court as well.
If Moccabee's case had gone to trial trial, the death penalty could have been a possibility.
Instead, the county prosecutor and Moccabee's attorney negotiated two consecutive life sentences, meaning that Moccabee could be out in 40 years, Dal Ponte reported.
Of course, I agree that justice should not have a price.
It's my understanding that only the family wanted a trial. They wanted a death sentence.
Based on the article, Moccabee didn't want a trial because of the possible death penalty so he chose to plea bargain. After a guilty plea to two murders, what's the point of a trial when the odds of a trial leading to a death sentence are overwhelming?
posted on August 18, 2002 09:23:51 PM new
"The families of the deceased expected to get a jury trial but the county said that they couldn't afford it."
If the county could afford it, they would have had the trial with death penalty specifications. Death penalty cases are very expensive due to mandatory appeals and a death penalty certified defence attorney. This county could not only afford the costs of a trial, but they couldn't afford the cost of a death verdict.
In any event, the cost of the trial should not be a factor.
posted on August 18, 2002 10:12:49 PM new
Now, I understand. Thank's for posting this article, REAMOND. You are right...the cost of a trial should not be a factor.
posted on August 18, 2002 10:42:12 PM new
I have even seen cases where evidence was "modified" to avoid expences.
A murder was committed in one county but the "expert" said the murder was done in a wealthier county where the victim was kidnapped from so the trial would take place there instead of the less wealthy county where the body was found and where the actual killing took place.
I wonder if juries will ever wise up and start taking a more jaundiced look at cases put before them.
posted on August 19, 2002 06:16:37 AM new
When justice is constrained by time limits and money a lot of innocent people will be convicted. Swift, economical justice should not be the democratic way.
My experience as a juror on a drug case led me to doubt the entire justice system along with the intelligence of the average American. I doubt that they will "wise up".
On this case, for example, one member of the jury, a CPA, really believed that it was possible that the defendant, who worked on a loading dock, could have a record of American Express bills totalling approximately $15,000 per month for a period of over one year. The defendant claimed that he made the money betting on horses.
When jurors can't consider the evidence right under their nose, how will they ever understand what's happening behind the scenes.
posted on August 19, 2002 07:52:51 AM new
Most people are sheep, Helen. They want to be told what to do, what to think, where to go, when to do it, and so forth. Ack! It's laziness in thinking, not retardation, but they may as well as be for what they don't do with their God-given gray matter between their ears. If that weren't the case, then why does organized religion, which has had no changes in viewpoint since the dark ages, thrive in the face of Science? We know that Republicans, who only represent the Rich and Elite in this country, could never get elected into office by the common moron unless it were true. This is why I sometimes throw my hands up in the air and yell about America WANTING their Rights removed and thrown back into the darkness of ignorance. Maybe we need to have a repressive régime where freethinkers have run away in the past to places like America, maybe with science, they will become the first lunar colonists and beyond.
posted on August 19, 2002 08:05:57 AM new
I know! We'll have an India-like Caste in society, but it will be voluntary: the lowest level gets no education, except through religious teachings and they do the grunt work of society: sewer clean up, toxic-waste clean up, radiation clean ups and so forth. They would work in the fields, live on the God-created soil in teepees and WWII Quonset Huts, and earn their lashes of the whip each day. The most that they could aspire to is Overseer and handle the whip themselves. That would be the majority of Republican voters volunteering for that duty if they were told to go do it in the media from their leaders.
The next tier is the Professional class and the public schools would function at 100% now that the dregs are gone. This class would fulfill the necessities of life, from doctors who help the mother to give birth to the mortician down the hall who takes care of the dead. Since the lowest caste can not even allow their shadow to fall upon others of higher caste, they will not be seen at all and that is OK, because they will be told that their religion forbids medical treatment and government handouts. They will have to hand over 50% of their income to taxes, however.
I don't suggest an Elite Class, however. The present one that we have needs to go, as their ambition is to set up a Monarchy here in America - which would make everyone from the Founding Fathers of this country to Mark Twain and Theodore Roosevelt turn over in their graves. I think we ought to use them to populate the coal mines and oil fields that they are so fond of, along with their lower-caste constituency that they depend upon so heavily for, but abuse all of the time.
posted on August 19, 2002 09:54:18 AM newI think we ought to use them to populate the coal mines and oil fields that they are so fond of, along with their lower-caste constituency that they depend upon so heavily for, but abuse all of the time.
And we could send them marching off to war - instead of their lower-caste constituency that they depend upon so heavily.
posted on August 19, 2002 11:49:09 AM new
Helen, it's been argued that those who do not participate in society do not deserve to belong to it. In turn, the argument also goes that those who do not participate in the running of the government do not deserve citizenship. Do the mindless "couldn't care less" types in our society in America deserve to be citizens, have Constitutional Rights, and have all of the benefits thereof? So what if a person is merely born in America? The third-world countryman who couldn't care less about American politics and society is no different than someone born here with the same attitude. Do we give everyone in the world American citizenship, then? Is asking for a PARTICIPATION requirement in running this country's affairs from everyone to become our citizens unjust somehow? Should the slob down the street get to destroy yours, mine, and everyone else's Rights, because they only vote Who they are told to vote for, rather than educate themselves about the issues and make a true personal choice of conscience when filling in that ballot? Do they deserve to have the right to even have the Vote? Do the people who never vote, never participate, and simply luxuriate themselves in their Rights at the cost of everyone else's have any Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights at all? Shouldn't it be a requirement for citizenship that birth alone will not guarantee you citizenship? Shouldn't Citizenship be granted by the sacrifices that you have made for society and the continued participation that you make for that society? Are these so-called Citizens not at the very root of our problems now, having stupidly put monsters into office to cheat us, steal from us, and attempt to set up a Monarchy here in America? Wouldn't it be right to send them packing to Monarchies, Dictatorships, Religious governments, and other places where they never are allowed to think, but simply do as they are told -- which is what they want to happen here to us? Don't we have a right to defend ourselves from these complacent, non-participating, so-called citizens, who are the true cause of our present situation?
posted on August 19, 2002 02:57:14 PM new
The "mindless "couldn't care less" types in our society in America" are carefully cultivated by the elite in order to maintain a properly functioning system. What would the elite do without them?
Chomsky describes the situation in an essay titled "Force and Opinion".
"A properly functioning system of indoctrination has a variety of tasks, some rather delicate. One of its targets is the stupid and ignorant masses. They must be kept that way, diverted with emotionally potent oversimplifications, marginalized, and isolated. Ideally, each person should be alone in front of the TV screen watching sports, soap operas, or comedies, deprived of organizational structures that permit individuals lacking resources to discover what they think and believe in interaction with others, to formulate their own concerns and programs, and to act to realize them. They can then be permitted, even encouraged, to ratify the decisions of their betters in periodic elections. The rascal multitude are the proper targets of the mass media and a public education system geared to obedience and training in needed skills, including the skill of repeating patriotic slogans on timely occasions."
I don't have an answer, Borillar but at least I'm conscious of the problem.
posted on August 19, 2002 04:17:14 PM newAre these so-called Citizens not at the very root of our problems now, having stupidly put monsters into office to cheat us, steal from us, and attempt to set up a Monarchy here in America?
Be careful not to blame the victim. You see just how much influence ,or lack of influence, you have as someone who has made an effort to research issues. Why do you expect more from the "ignorant masses"?
posted on August 19, 2002 06:05:55 PM new
Education versus Indoctrination, Saabsister. Your Own Opinion versus the Opinion Given To You To Call Your Own. The first requires you to understand what the issues are, the pros and cons, and to make a rational decision based upon good, solid facts and good thinking. The other is regurgitating someone else's agenda -- who usually has only their best interests at heart while screwing yours over. I do not deny those who want to use Indocrination as their method of choice in gaining an opinion on the issues - at least they have one. What I object to is their participation in elections and isssues that affect ME! If they want to act like that - stupidly, let them go form a country of their own and take their autocratic overlords with them and leave us a more enlightened society and keep it that way.
posted on August 20, 2002 05:58:34 PM new
Well, well, I see. Some topics - like Revolution and Bush Family History are too much for you all to even speculate upon! Add to the list is Citizenship. I wonder what other truly debatable subjects won't be discussed at all? Oh! Of course, we'll have the PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS thread for the tenth time this year alone. Complimented with the ZERO TOLERANCE AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS issue, which also gets threaded quite often, as well as the Isreal vs. Palistine never-ending saga. God forbid that you should be asked a question on a topic requiring you to really think and not just regurgitate someone else's canned responses! No way to get that link? Then don't post your "opinion" - right? Crap!
posted on August 20, 2002 06:06:12 PM new
Personalize it, Borillar. How are you involved in politics? Are you out there educating the masses? Maybe you are or maybe you're just typing the same old stuff here. I live in Windbag City. I've about heard it all from every side. How are you walking that walk?
posted on August 20, 2002 11:51:06 PM new
How about Depersonalizing it? Why not give your real opinion on a real debateable issue, rather than regurgitate the same old crap and links in response to valid points and issues? What does my personal life have to do with the question of whether or not those who do not contribute to the political process deserve to benefit from the system? Not a single thing! Fluff? Plenty of those posts if you want to drag your sorry lives into the public eye. But to rerally have to THINK, to have to have a REAL personal opinon, well, that's just not done around here!
posted on August 21, 2002 04:40:35 AM newWhat does my personal life have to do with the question of whether or not those who do not contribute to the political process deserve to benefit from the system?
How do we know that you're contributing in any way other than typing here? And who defines "contributing"? I've covered some contentious public meetings for the press and although you might say that all the attendees were "contributing", I have a sneaky suspicion that you wouldn't like some of the contributions. Even in small (500 family) neighborhood spats there are often no common goals and each person brings a different history, agenda, or solution to the mix. Some opinions are based on research, some on history, some on beer, some on popular opinion. Who's to say which is valid?
Ed. for unintentional anagram.
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 21, 2002 04:58 AM ]
posted on August 21, 2002 12:04:58 PM new
>How do we know that you're contributing in any way other than typing here?
Again: What does my personal life have to do with the question of whether or not those who do not contribute to the political process deserve to benefit from the system?
posted on August 21, 2002 12:34:17 PM new
Again, who defines "contribution"? I may be completely misreading your posts, but lately they seem to urge people to action. It seems only fair to ask what action you're taking. I'm not interested in which particular political candidate or cause you support, but more in that you do.
I'm concerned that you're blaming the couch potatoes who watch Jerry Springer and American Idol for our problems, when the problem as I see it is the influence advertizing dollars have on those people to begin with.
I voted for Nader in the last election. Did I throw my vote away or am I on the cusp of voters who are willing to support third-party candidates?
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 21, 2002 12:41 PM ]
posted on August 21, 2002 04:26:55 PM new
>I may be completely misreading your posts
You are misreading my posts.
I brought up a debateable topic of discussion.
You have read answers into my questions, answers that I did not give.
Questions are only questions.
>Again, who defines "contribution"?
This question was not answered because the question that you pose is not about the "contribution", but the "who". Please rephrase your question properly and I will attempt top answer it, although you have not bothered to do that for one of mine.
posted on August 21, 2002 06:42:33 PM new
Which question specifically do you want me to answer?
I'll tell you a little about me personally. (Oh, I know. Depersonalize! Well, cover your eyes. ) Politics is only one interest of mine. I'd say that the fine arts are as important to me as a finely tuned political argument. Is that so blasphemous? I don't think so. I've never known anyone who got a second shot at life. I'm not talking about born agains, near death experiences or actual revivals on the operating table. I mean we don't get to come back and correct all those mistakes we made or do all the things we wish we'd done the first time around. We go around once. ( You may debate me on the religious aspect if you like. ) I'm not going to say that someone who paints, composes music, writes the GAN, or directs a film noire is any less important because they don't give a flying F about politics and have no desire to change. I'm not going to apologize because I think an opera singer, perhaps through a sense of noblesse oblige or perhaps through hedonism, left us peons with a truly outstanding, imaginatively designed garden. We're better off for her having done so.
I suppose in a very meandering way what I'm asking is who the hell are you and I to decide who's worthy of being a citizen. Don't take that to mean I don't care what Bush does to try to screw over the average person.
Apologies, RAEMOND, for helping to derail your thread.
posted on August 22, 2002 07:46:15 AM new
Ummm, yah, me too, REAMOND! It just looked to me like there weren't going to be anymore comments on the subject. I mean, with what already got posted, what else is there to say? I'll just go make a new thread and hope that you'll accept my apology for derailing your thread.
