Maybe you didn’t understand my post. I simply turned around what you said. Pretty basic stuff. Doesn’t mean I ACTUALLY believe you stand up for child rapists.
You responded with a certain tone, you get that in return.
Also, you misread the facts presented. I’m sure you were screaming ‘due process’ when Couey told investigators where Jessica Lunsford’s body was. “Well, anyone could know that and have had her hair and blood in his apartment!”
Again, Mr. Self-Righteous, you ignore the fact that on a MESSAGE BOARD, people are allowed to have whatever judgments they wish regarding criminal cases. Because you have not seen the multitude of posts where I defend the possibly innocent in cases that require more investigation or the idea that mere possession of child pornography should NOT be a crime (as it is too easy to plant) does not mean that I’m an idiot and unable to see what’s going on in a specific case.
And isn’t it odd that you said “pornography” and not “CHILD pornography” which is what’s in question here. That makes me believe you are disingenuous or more interested in reflexively playing the role you have set for yourself.
Due process is for those involved. I can sit at my computer and believe someone to be guilty and typically be right just as I was in the case Couey, the moron who killed Carly Bruscia, Jayson Williams (though he walked on lesser charges,) OJ Simpson (again, he walked as ‘due process’ didn’t work quite so well) and many, MANY other cases where the guilt of the person was pretty clear once the evidence started coming in.
Due process, so you know, is to ensure fairness in the result, not to TRULY assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the circumstances. That’s for the jury and the judge. Not for me at home, DieHard.
If you think they planted DNA or it came from the mother’s underwear rather from the little girl’s body or clothes, why not make that case? If you don’t have any evidence for that, the burden is really on you.
As for any punishment, it is ASSUMED that it would happen after a trial. If they can show a massive conspiracy to convict this dude, then let them and I will state that I was wrong. Otherwise, shove off with your insincere moral outrage at online posts about a criminal case.
> Again, Mr. Self-Righteous, you ignore the fact that on a MESSAGE BOARD, people are allowed to have whatever judgments they wish regarding criminal cases.
Sure you are. Without a doubt — and if you want to post twaddle that, too, is your prerogative. And if that twaddle makes Conservative values look silly, I reserve the right to object.
> Due process, so you know, is to ensure fairness in the result, not to TRULY assume that a person is innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the circumstances. That’s for the jury and the judge. Not for me at home, DieHard.
Thanks for the law lesson: I am well aware of Due Process.
I guess you’ve identified a specific weakness in what passes for “Due Process” wherever you are at home, then, Skywalk.
Some jurisdictions, such as the one I live in, afford automatic name suppression for the accused, as a matter of Due Process, and will prevent the media from publishing any information that may identify the accused, until either the suppression order is lifted or, more often, the court finds Guilty.
The Courts would also seek to suppress discussion of the case in forums such as this.
The Courts here do this to protect the *reputation* of the person who stands accused, just on the off-chance they are found not-guilty. Quite aside from seeking to ensure a fair trial.
In all, a much more just outcome.
So, for example, you have cited OJ Simpson: in the jurisdiction we live in, we would never have known his name or even his occupation or reputation as a famous sportsman. Sure, there would be speculation as to who it actually is, but nothing that could stick.
And had this information been leaked irretrievably, the trial would probably have been aborted, paving the way for civil damages to be sought by OJ Simpson, for harming his reputation. This, as well as and the full wrath of the Courts to be brought to bear on those who leaked it.
Under these circumstances, the Jury would have had a much better opportunity of formulating an intelligent verdict, and it is probable that a finding of Guilt would have been more achievable.
In all, a much better result than the dog’s breakfast that passed for “Due Process” over there in the OJ Simpson case.
Ours isn’t a perfect system: there are ways for suppressed information to be leaked, and it is often viewed as a joke by some. And yes, it does infringe on the Public’s right to know: in our case, this is not viewed as an absolute right.
On balance, it is at least a good attempt at Due Process.
You write further:
> If you don’t have any evidence for that, the burden is really on you.
It’s actually not, unless I am sitting in France. And *that* is one of the beauties of Due Proces.
> If they can show a massive conspiracy to convict this dude, then let them and I will state that I was wrong.
As you may be aware, it wouldn’t be the first time this happened in the US. Or, for that matter, in the jurisdiction in which I live. You are surely not so credulous as to believe that this *never* happens, ay.
> Otherwise, shove off...
You first.