I dunno–I kind of think it might be. Look at ywtf saying “You’d only have a point if I said he’d be found guilty.” It seems clear she’s making a distinction between two things:
Doing the wrong thing; and
After going through a trial, being convicted of doing an illegal thing.
There’s a third category–doing an illegal thing–but I think ywtf (and maybe you, John) has been going in and out of using that meaning.
If it’s really important what folks think in any of these cases, it might be helpful to declare which meaning you’re using. For example:
-I think John Edwards is guilty of the moral failing of using campaign money for personal ends.
-I suspect John Edwards acted illegally when he used those monies for personal ends.
-I have no idea whether John Edwards will be found guilty in a court of law for the crime of using those monies for personal ends.
I didn’t mean to imply that it was completely irrelevant. But it’s not at the core of the disagreement, which is what I said. The core question is whether people are stepping back and looking at things objectively (or at least trying to do so), or are they seeing it only through the lens of their political beliefs.
Bricker’s statement was a personal anecdote. It was not an assertion about the overall rates of innocents in the justice system, only those he personally served as a PD.
I’m not advancing Bricker’s post as evidence for the assertion there are no innocents being prosecuted. As far as I can tell that’s not even one of the propositions being discussed. I’m defending its plausibility as an accurate statement of fact as to his personal experience. BobLibDem was using it to impeach Bricker’s judgment by implying he is incapable of seeing past his biases to accurately determine innocence or guilt. If Bricker believed had never had an innocent client as a PD it’s because he was incapable of setting aside his biases and seeing the innocence of his clients. The plausibility of Bricker having never actually had any innocent clients, which is roughly proportional to his length of employment as a PD, is relevant to that discussion.
All that having been said, it’s a long way off the mark for the original post, which was expressing anger at Bricker’s superciliousness and nitpicking. I would agree he’s supercilious and nitpicky. I just don’t agree that “I never had an innocent client” is clear evidence of his inability to see past his biases.
I agree with your general point, but this specific comparison is not appropriate. Bricker was not talking about post-conviction exonerations. Even if we grant that convictions of innocent people are extremely rare, that does not mean that innocent defendents are extremely rare. There could be a lot of innocent defendents who are found innocent.
Have you made a joke about John Mace and non-partisanship? I’m just not sure if you’ve made any jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship, so you’ll have to make some more, just in case someone hasn’t seen one of your jokes about John Mace and non-partisanship. Wouldn’t want anyone not to realize how clever you are. Repetition is the soul of wit, you know.
I was looking for a number that doesn’t really exist and exonerations was the closest. In general the sequence goes like this, from most common to least common.
Some small subset of Arrests are False Arrests
Some small subset of Prosecutions are Wrongful Prosecutions
Some small subset of Convictions are Wrongful Convictions
Some, probably small, subset of Wrongful Convictions result in Exoneration
Bricker was making an assertion about wrongful prosecutions being very rare, actually nonexistant, in his personal experience as a Public Defender.
I thought about looking at acquittals, but there is similar hierarchy of ways someone could be factually guilty but still be acquitted there.
Acquittals where the prosecution fails to prove its case(usually with significant help from defense counsel) - unknowable percentage
Acquittals where bad behavior didn’t fit the strict construction of the statute - unknowable percentage
Acquittals dependent on technicalities/procedural errors - possibly knowable
Some tiny number of jury nullifications - unknowable percentage
The number I’m looking for doesn’t really exist, but it would be some subset of wrongful prosecutions. The closest thing I could come up with was to go all the way through to the other side of the process and look at exonerations. Because if someone was exonerated it means they were, at one point, falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted.
Then of course there are the falsely arrested, wrongfully prosecuted, and wrongfully convicted which make up 99.999% of the incarcerated, at least if you believe the inmates.
Let’s not be too hasty. I think we should clarify the various levels before we start giving out awards. I wouldn’t want to end up too man levels below the top.
Didn’t even mention your name, John. Have a hard time convicting on even so small a charge as petty snark with evidence like that. Therefore, I’m not guilty.
(Let the record show that the respondent is batting big, brown, innocent eyes.)
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Sorry, but you rate no higher than 720 millibrickers.
[/QUOTE]
Huh. And here I thought it was measured in parts per 'luci. 720 milli-'lucies would be a lethal dose…that’s why they generally use micro- or even nano-'lucies. Elvis, of course, would be something on the order of 250 milli-'lucies, making him about a quarter of the master on the annoyance and tinfoil/ankle biting scale. Definitely lethal, though thankfully rare…
Is it better than your own shtick, that of mean-spirited, humorless psychologizing, unable to experience disagreement without a hateful comment or four? I’ve been here a long time, until recently lurking more than posting, and I can’t recall a single individual whose presence has made me feel queasier than yours. You give the impression of such utter nastiness — of soullessness — that I can scarce convince myself there’s a genuine person behind your posts. You’re every bit as bad as (say) Shodan, except Shodan at least betrays the fact that he’s a compassion-bearing human every once in a while.
Ugh. Now I feel dirty. But for all their faults, whatever they are, I’d take a thousand elucidators, John Maces, and Brickers before even consenting to think about you again.