Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

triforcharity said:
The US Constitution and every state law, disagrees. You're welcome to hold the opposite opinion, but that just means that your opinion is based on ignorance and lies.
Click to expand...


It's a matter of opinion, yours is about as good as mine.
 
Jodie said:
It's a matter of opinion, yours is about as good as mine.
Click to expand...
You have to stop saying that. An opinion based entirely on emotion which endorses the abridgment of individual rights is not in any way equal to an opinion based on history and law which also includes an implicit respect for individual rights.
 
But it is my opinion just the same because reality does not live up to the ideal, that is a fact.
 
Jodie said:
But it is my opinion just the same because reality does not live up to the ideal, that is a fact.
Click to expand...

So your solution is to stop trying to live up to the ideal? Because some people break the law that we should get rid of the law entirely?
 
triforcharity said:
Article 1, Section 8 of the USC disagrees. Factually.
Click to expand...

He gets the deciding vote, or works around it by utilizing his ability to order troops in to areas of conflict without technically calling it war. It's amazing how constitutional law can be adapted to suit one's purposes, why not in this situation?
 
Border Reiver said:
So your solution is to stop trying to live up to the ideal? Because some people break the law that we should get rid of the law entirely?
Click to expand...

I stated earlier that we should strive for the ideal or rethink the whole process to be more equitable.
 
Jodie said:
But it is my opinion just the same because reality does not live up to the ideal, that is a fact.
Click to expand...

In fact, your opinion is again, based not on fact. Fact is, the vast majority of of the time, our justice system works. Plain and simple.
 
Jodie said:
He gets the deciding vote, or works around it by utilizing his ability to order troops in to areas of conflict without technically calling it war.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I posted, in relation to what you posted, did you? You know how I can tell? You've shifted the goalposts.

Jodie said:
It's amazing how constitutional law can be adapted to suit one's purposes, why not in this situation?
Click to expand...
Because that is allowed under the US Constitution? Lol!

"Why can't we exile someone without a trial?"

"Because it goes against the law"

"But we can adapt the constitution in OTHER areas"

"The constitution allows that...."

Really? This is like playing whack a mole. When you post one ignorant opinion, I whack it, and two MORE pop up!! Lol! One of my favorite games.

BTW, you never did provide evidence of this claim...

Jodie said:
There are many others who feel the way I do, I'm not lonely at all. I think you might be surprised to find that your attitude is in the minority outside of this forum.
Click to expand...

Wanna take a stab at that?
 
Jodie said:
I stated earlier that we should strive for the ideal or rethink the whole process to be more equitable.
Click to expand...

So far, your "rethinking the whole process" has been to:

a. Remove the right to trial if there are media reports of a confession and supporting evidence;
b. Move straight to sentencing if the facts, as they are reported in the media, offer no other explanation other than the person's guilt;
c. Introduce the idea of exile as a judicial punishment to countries where the person's ancestors were born.

I will say that your idea might speed up the judicial process if adopted - there remains a number small problems with your ideas that you really should ponder:

a. How do you separate false confessions to offences from actual confessions without a neutral third party to examine all the other evidence;
b. How do you determine what the person actually confessed to, or under what circumstances;
c. How do you prevent the abuse of this process;
d. If saving time and judicial resources is the goal why not just assume that everyone arrested is guilty and punish them accordingly;
e. If you decide to strip a citizen of their citizenship and exile them how do you determine where that person should be exiled to;
f. How do you determine that the country they are exiled to will punish them at all;
g. How do you persuade a nation state to accept your convicted criminal; and
h. Convince a large portion of the voters that your proposed changes to the judicial system are perfectly acceptable, that such extraordinary power will not be abused, and that the US Constitution needs urgent amendment to reflect this and that such amendments need to have retroactive application (at least back to April 15, 2013)?
 
triforcharity said:
You didn't read what I posted, in relation to what you posted, did you? You know how I can tell? You've shifted the goalposts.


Because that is allowed under the US Constitution? Lol!

"Why can't we exile someone without a trial?"

"Because it goes against the law"

"But we can adapt the constitution in OTHER areas"

"The constitution allows that...."

Really? This is like playing whack a mole. When you post one ignorant opinion, I whack it, and two MORE pop up!! Lol! One of my favorite games.

BTW, you never did provide evidence of this claim...



Wanna take a stab at that?
Click to expand...

I cited research regarding the evidence of inequity in our judiciary system several pages back, that was your answer, but you chose to ignore it or either missed it. Does research make it fact? Not necessarily but it does suggest that my point is valid.

I didn't not bring up George Bush, if I recall correctly, that goal post was your example. If you don't like what I pointed out then I suppose you can take it up with your senator.

I'm sorry, how is whack a mole anything like our conversation? Calling me ignorant doesn't make it so and you don't seem to have good counter arguments for my points. The discussion still remains circular.
 
Border Reiver said:
So far, your "rethinking the whole process" has been to:

a. Remove the right to trial if there are media reports of a confession and supporting evidence; No, I take nothing the media says as gospel, that was your assumption.
b. Move straight to sentencing if the facts, as they are reported in the media, offer no other explanation other than the person's guilt;Once again, your assumption
c. Introduce the idea of exile as a judicial punishment to countries where the person's ancestors were born. This is true, and I still think it is a fine idea.

I will say that your idea might speed up the judicial process if adopted - there remains a number small problems with your ideas that you really should ponder:

a. How do you separate false confessions to offences from actual confessions without a neutral third party to examine all the other evidence;
This does not have to take an excessively long time to accomplish in clear cut cases such as Tsaraev's and Ariel's. These kinds of cases are the exception.
b. How do you determine what the person actually confessed to, or under what circumstances; Videotape all confessions
c. How do you prevent the abuse of this process; As stated above.
d. If saving time and judicial resources is the goal why not just assume that everyone arrested is guilty and punish them accordingly; This is stupid and not even remotely close to what I suggested.
e. If you decide to strip a citizen of their citizenship and exile them how do you determine where that person should be exiled to; If they are a U.S. citizen it would be a moot point, but if we are considering terrorists of foreign birth, why not?
f. How do you determine that the country they are exiled to will punish them at all; I can't think of too many countries that welcome terrorists, it would just be a matter of time before they did something illegal there and had to wade through a foreign judiciary process.
g. How do you persuade a nation state to accept your convicted criminal; and Exactly, but if they possessed dual citizenship, no crime was committed in the country of origin, can they refuse them entry?
h. Convince a large portion of the voters that your proposed changes to the judicial system are perfectly acceptable, that such extraordinary power will not be abused, and that the US Constitution needs urgent amendment to reflect this and that such amendments need to have retroactive application (at least back to April 15, 2013)? All you have to do is put it out there and see what happens. There is no way to predict abuse, but since our current system is abused, anything should be an improvement whether we adhere more diligently to the existing laws or amend the constitution to strip terrorists of their rights. We aren't doing such a hot job controlling terrorism in our own country with past measures, if you continue to do things the way you have always done them, then you will always get the same result.
Click to expand...

There you have it in bold.
 
Jodie said:
I cited research regarding the evidence of inequity in our judiciary system several pages back, that was your answer, but you chose to ignore it or either missed it. Does research make it fact? Not necessarily but it does suggest that my point is valid.
Click to expand...

The research you posted, has nothing to do with this claim. I'll post it again for you.
YOU said:
There are many others who feel the way I do, I'm not lonely at all. I think you might be surprised to find that your attitude is in the minority outside of this forum.
Click to expand...

Context: Claiming that your position, which is that we should skip the trial and go straight to sentencing. You're claiming that we here that have accurately said that your opinion is flawed, and that skipping the trial, goes against the constitution. Imagine that.

Jodie said:
I didn't not bring up George Bush, if I recall correctly, that goal post was your example.
Click to expand...

You're not correct.

Jodie said:
If you don't like what I pointed out then I suppose you can take it up with your senator.
Click to expand...

My senator has nothing to do with our conversation. Go back and read it again. Read it in context.

Jodie said:
I'm sorry, how is whack a mole anything like our conversation? Calling me ignorant doesn't make it so and you don't seem to have good counter arguments for my points. The discussion still remains circular.
Click to expand...

It's the best way to describe your posts, and stay within the MA.

And yes, it is circular, but you're driving. I'm just along for the ride.
 
varwoche said:
Well then, justice ala Jodie will have to wait another day. There is no videotaped confession from Tsarnaev.
Click to expand...

I'm not agreeing that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be executed without trial, I find that ridiculous because, despite any argument to the contrary, we all know a) why that isn't a good idea and b) there is not even the slightest chance that will happen.

However we also don't know -- or at least I don't think we know -- that the FBI didn't videotape the questioning Tsarnaev underwent. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom