Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[Jodie]

Uh, a *********** court?



Are you just an utterly stupid person? Or want to be badass and immediately assassinate everyone you see as guilty? Do you have any, any at all, respect for the American Constitution?

"your point here" is that you just want to kill anyone you think is overwhelmlingly guilty, without trial. Good job, Robespierre.

People here are throwing common sense out the window in favor of supporting a process that is not necessary in this case for the simple reason that it is supposedly done for everyone. Why is it done for everyone, why is it a "right"? The man is guilty, there is no doubt, so why go through the motions and waste the tax payer's money and time in general?

 

[Jodie]

Yeah, I guess by Jodie's logic, it's still OK to consider the US part of Britain.

No because the Atlantic ocean separates the two. I think we were only british in theory,

 

[Jodie]

That's it. Let's send Tsarnaev back to the Mongol Empire!

Now that's an idea worth considering

 

[SezMe]

Why is it done for everyone, why is it a "right"?

Because it's a right enshrined in the Constitution. Duh.

 

[triforcharity]

You are the one that seems to be putting me on a pedestal, I thought I was only voicing an opinion.

It really looks like you're ignoring the point I made very clear.....

 

[triforcharity]

People here are throwing common sense out the window

So, common sense = the law???? Really.

in favor of supporting a process that is not necessary in this case

Full stop. No. Completely wrong. Not only is it NECESSARY, the LAW requires it. No if's, and's or but's about it. REQUIRES. Demands. We're not Somalia. We're the USA. It's required, and will be done every time.

for the simple reason that it is supposedly done for everyone.

No again. And it's done for everyone because the law requires it.

Why is it done for everyone, why is it a "right"?

Our laws require it. It makes it so people like you, don't throw people in jail based on their own personal opinion, or bias. Or, even plain wrong information.

The man is guilty, there is no doubt, so why go through the motions and waste the tax payer's money and time in general?

Here. Here's why.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

I've hilited the relevant sections. Notice it says "SHALL" and not "may" or "possibly"? It's a REQUIREMENT of our law.

 

[Rat]

No because the Atlantic ocean separates the two. I think we were only british in theory,

OK, I'm calling Poe. This is moving well into the realm of parody.

 

[abaddon]

People here are throwing common sense out the window in favor of supporting a process that is not necessary in this case for the simple reason that it is supposedly done for everyone. Why is it done for everyone, why is it a "right"? The man is guilty, there is no doubt, so why go through the motions and waste the tax payer's money and time in general?

Why? Due process, that's why. What you are advocating is that due process be chucked out the window, because, in your opinion, it is unnecessary in this case. Where does that end? In your opinion. Where does that stop? Summary conviction for speeding without trial? Convictions for witchcraft based on hearsay, perhaps? Convictions without trial? You are guilty, this is merely a sentencing hearing? Is that what you really want? Because it didn't work out so well for the soviets.

It is a strength of the US system of justice that no matter how bad the offence, the perp gets representation and a voice. Sure, sometimes it goes all runny, but rather that runniness than injustice. Your way of thinking leads to the Guildford four, or the Bermingham six, or the maguire seven. Chuck them in jail forever, on foot no evidence but what was faked up. That is why a trial must happen, otherwise, how are USians any different from the Mullahs hacking off hands and heads?

 

[Jodie]

So, common sense = the law????


I've hilited the relevant sections. Notice it says "SHALL" and not "may" or "possibly"? It's a REQUIREMENT of our law.

Common sense should equal the law and I'm not so sure about the impartial jury in this case. Where in the U.S. will he get that?

 

[Jodie]

Why? Due process, that's why. What you are advocating is that due process be chucked out the window, because, in your opinion, it is unnecessary in this case. Where does that end? In your opinion. Where does that stop? Summary conviction for speeding without trial? Convictions for witchcraft based on hearsay, perhaps? Convictions without trial? You are guilty, this is merely a sentencing hearing? Is that what you really want? Because it didn't work out so well for the soviets.

It is a strength of the US system of justice that no matter how bad the offence, the perp gets representation and a voice. Sure, sometimes it goes all runny, but rather that runniness than injustice. Your way of thinking leads to the Guildford four, or the Bermingham six, or the maguire seven. Chuck them in jail forever, on foot no evidence but what was faked up. That is why a trial must happen, otherwise, how are USians any different from the Mullahs hacking off hands and heads?

In certain cases, yes, I believe a trial is pointless.

 

[Jodie]

OK, I'm calling Poe. This is moving well into the realm of parody.

There were many more citizens here of other nationalities besides British citizens. The distance alone prohibited any kind of real unity, so it was only a theoretical relationship. In any case, it certainly didn't last very long.

 

[Jodie]

It really looks like you're ignoring the point I made very clear.....

No I got it, but it was a bit melodramatic.

 

[Border Reiver]

People here are throwing common sense out the window in favor of supporting a process that is not necessary in this case for the simple reason that it is supposedly done for everyone. Why is it done for everyone, why is it a "right"? The man is guilty, there is no doubt, so why go through the motions and waste the tax payer's money and time in general?

Because the US Constitution says you do. Everyone gets to have a trial, confront their accusers, answer the evidence against them, etc. Even the ones that we think shouldn't, because not to is to invite a series of potential abuses - secret trials, show trials, etc. if you ignore one person's rights in favour of expediency then you open the door to everyone's rights being ignored.

 

[Border Reiver]

No because the Atlantic ocean separates the two. I think we were only british in theory,

Up until 1783, the colonies were British in law as well.

The government was British in style (bicameral parliament), the legal system was British, the military was organized in British lines, the language was English, etc. Heck a reasonable portion of the population wanted to remain British and fought to do so.

By that logic Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc aren't really American because they are not geographically contiguous with the rest of the US.

 

[Rat]

Up until 1783, the colonies were British in law as well.

The government was British in style (bicameral parliament), the legal system was British, the military was organized in British lines, the language was English, etc. Heck a reasonable portion of the population wanted to remain British and fought to do so.

By that logic Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc aren't really American because they are not geographically contiguous with the rest of the US.

And has been pointed out by many, the founding fathers would generally have considered themselves Englishmen. The revolution came about because they felt they weren't being given the full rights of Englishmen to which they were entitled. They wouldn't have felt entitled to them if they didn't consider themselves Englishmen.

(NB, I use Englishmen rather than British because that is the usual terminology when talking about this subject. I have no idea what parts of what is now the UK they all came from.)

 

[triforcharity]

Common sense should equal the law and I'm not so sure about the impartial jury in this case. Where in the U.S. will he get that?

Nice Dodge! That thing got a Hemi??? Holy **** Jodie, you're just not getting it, are you?

 

[abaddon]

In certain cases, yes, I believe a trial is pointless.

And who decides that? You? Frankly, that is simply a recipe for miscarriages of justice.

 

[varwoche]

And who decides that? You? Frankly, that is simply a recipe for miscarriages of justice.

Quaint concepts like justice don't play a part in Jodie's dystopian fantasy. She wants you sent to the cornfield, then off to the cornfield you go.

 

[Jodie]

Up until 1783, the colonies were British in law as well.

The government was British in style (bicameral parliament), the legal system was British, the military was organized in British lines, the language was English, etc. Heck a reasonable portion of the population wanted to remain British and fought to do so.

By that logic Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc aren't really American because they are not geographically contiguous with the rest of the US.

It was a different time then, no we are all linked economically. I think colonies were much more self sufficient back then. Maybe legally they were considered a British colony but I doubt they contributed much, hence the reason for the revolution.

 

[Jodie]

Nice Dodge! That thing got a Hemi??? Holy **** Jodie, you're just not getting it, are you?

Oh I get it just fine but that's the ideal. In reality it doesn't happen that way so why pretend in this particular case?