Re: The right to present a defense:

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:17:42 -0700, Sanity wrote:

On Jul 4, 10:36 pm, Shava_X <voodopeo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:55:11 -0700, Sanity wrote:>
The presumption of innocence is a substantive right that has been
under
attack as long as I can remember.  “Due process of law” = “notice and
opportunity to defend” DAMN IT!  Whether or not the defense is
viable /
believable is to be decided, but to judge and condemn without
considering what the accused has to say is not just. I realize my
assessment of what is “just” may be argued, as ANY opining by anyone
may
be argued, but in pursuit of objectivity in defense of my statement I
think it only fair that anyone who would deny the right of due
process
to others eschews their own claim to the right to due process for
themselves – what goes around comes around.

I’m upset and venting angst.  Day before yesterday some guy was
arrested
near here, suspected of 8 murders, and the people I’ve talked with
about
the case have already found him guilty without a trial or any
personal
knowledge of his case.  I feel like I am the only person that thinks
the
defense deserves a chance to be heard.  This is nothing new.  All the
media’s a stage, and if someone is officially accused it seems blind
trust in Big Brother takes over condemning without trial. The list of
people that have been damned by mob mentality doesn’t start with
Jesus
and doesn’t seem to end…  No, I am not saying the guy that was
arrested
over an alleged 8 murders is innocent; I am saying I don’t know and I
refuse to hate him just because he has been called bad names.

Peace, Sanity

Your hypocritical bull*** got tedious a long time ago.  
You know damn well that the "innocent until proven guilty" applies to
legal proceedings, specifically, in court.  Outside a jury box or the
judicial bench, people people are free to think what ever they want,
whether You like it not (and obviously You have serious problems with
people thinking for themselves).  
You do not extend that same courtesy to others.  You have, on many
occasions, declared people and groups guilty, and then expect others to
take Your declaration as holy writ.  

People are as free to think that person is guilty

When people judge a person guilty without first according him/her the
opportunity to present a defense, the presumption of innocence and the
right of due process of law are nill. I say you can't have it both
ways: it's either or but not both (exclusive "or"), when I stand I am
not sitting. If I judge without due process, I am not according due
process...

as You are think otherwise.

I didn't say I think the guy accused of 8 murders is innocent, only
that he has the right to present a defense [cf.: Subject Line supra].
I think Saddam had the right to a fair trial before an independent
judge and jury in the International Criminal Court at the Hague too,
not because I think he was innocent but because I think everyone
deserves a fair trial...

 Why don't You stop trying to force Your opinions down the
throats of others, and then claiming they are guilty of some misdeed
when
they they resist.



"Due Process"? Cut the crap Sanity. This has nothing to due with due
process and You know it, so stop trotting the same Hypocritical B.S.

"Innocent Until Proven Guilty" applies to legal proceedings only. Out
side of that, it means nothing. (Hence the full phrase is "due process
of LAW", not "due process of public opinion".) What it means, is that
that a person can not be punished for a crime until after being found
guilty of that crime. It means that the Judge and Jury must keep an open
mind regarding the accused guilt or innocence and put aside any opinions
or views they may have already formed (which, unless they have been
living in a cave, they will have done). It means they must base their
formal decision on only the evidence presented during the trial, even if
they have heard other things elsewhere that might sway their personal
beliefs on the matter, or even if their 'gut feeling' is otherwise.

Even within legal proceedings, it is not universal. The Prosecutor is
not expected to consider the accused innocent until after the trial.
Just the opposite. But that is why the accused is entitled to their own
advocate.

Outside of legal proceedings "innocent until proven guilty" has no
bearing. If it did, no one would be claiming O.J. is a murderer. People
can, and will, make decisions based on the information they have. They
are under no legal or moral obligation to automatically assume a person
is innocent. In an ideal world, they would keep an open mind about it,
and continually re-evaluate their view as new information arises (a
luxury You are denying to the people You are condemning). But in this
less than ideal world, the best that can be done is to closed minded
people who are firm in the conclusion they have already made out of jury
boxes and off the bench. Making a decision does not subvert the due
process of law.

To insist that ALL people in ALL circumstances *MUST* consider an accused
person innocent until proven otherwise is nothing short of thought
regulation. You are trying to take away from people the right to make
their own decisions and form their own opinions. You would no sooner
tolerate that for Yourself than You would bother to wait for a defense
before before declaring a person guilty of high crimes, something You do
regularly.

.