Well, no, because I immediately took it back with, “But who gives a damn?”
I also think that anchovies on pizza are yummy.
If all you were saying was that the jury made the wrong verdict here, then, fine. It’s an opinion shared by many. End of discussion. You’ve been conducting this as if you had something to debate.
Just your opinion? Okay, fine, no prob, end of discussion.
Its job is to punish those who break the law. It is the job of the legislature to determine what the law is, and what counts as “bad guys”, not the courts.
No, you are confusing the legal system with Government again. A legal system that enforces bad laws successfully is working fine. It’s the legislature that isn’t working.
And the results of those public outcries are the necessary separation of legislature and judiciary, and strong protections for the defendant. If someone is punished despite a lack of evidence that they broke the law, you effectively have a lynch mob, and that’s something that the people in most* civilised countries have decided they don’t want.
Which is not to say I think you are actually calling for mob justice, but that’s an unintended consequence of what you are calling for, and an unacceptable one.
*All, really, it’s kinda a definition of “civilised”.
I haven’t even been saying that, but merely raised the question of whether a wrong verdict was reached for discussion, which I believe is the purpose of the thread—after all, it began with the question of what could possibly have ameliorated the video (and other) evidence to such a degree that the verdict reached would have been reasonable.
Your argument has been that, since a ‘not guilty’ verdict was reached, evidently, insufficient evidence was presented for a ‘guilty’ verdict, at least in the opinion of the jury—which is a truism. So, ‘the system worked’, nothing to see here, folks. I’m just pointing out that that’s not how it works—which you likewise don’t seem to believe, considering the way you feel about the OJ verdict. Every argument you’ve raised against my questioning the verdict in the present case could be raised regarding the OJ case, yet you’re on different sides of the fence regarding the two.
Er, what else do you typically discuss, if not opinions?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The problem is then that you can’t use the argument that the system works in this sense to defend the verdict that was reached in a specific case, because if, in fact, the laws are bad—or the system has other inherent weak spots, such as being easily gamed, catering to certain preconceptions, etc.—, then the verdict reached will not be just, even though the system worked.
What do you believe I am ‘calling for’, then?
Let me repeat, all I’m saying here is that the verdict reached in this case wasn’t just—I believe a guilty man walked free.
I think you’re calling for your belief, and that of others, to be considered relevant to questions of criminal guilt. It isn’t, all that matters is what is provable.
And I also think you are mistaken in thinking that, because a man you consider guilty walked free, justice wasn’t done. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the criminal justice system. It is there to punish people who can be proven to have harmed the state, not to provide redress for the individuals directly harmed by someone’s actions. It emphatically does not exist to ensure that someone is punished because of the death of someone, no matter how terrible that death is
So, unless you can provide proof that a crime was committed, proof that the jury somehow overlooked, or that the prosecution knew about but wasn’t introduced at trial, you shouldn’t say there’s been an injustice. I have no doubt you will continue to say so, as I have no doubt you are still confused about the differences between justice, redress, and vengeance.
Well, I’m not (not any more than they already are, of course, via the appropriate democratic channels).
And neither am I thinking this. I think that justice wasn’t done if somebody who killed another person wrongfully and maliciously (again, attempting to evade using words that will confuse you again into believing that I’m talking about the legal notions, not that it’s done much good before) isn’t convicted. I would have thought that’s a definition anybody could agree on, but it seems you don’t.
The misunderstanding here is your persistent belief that I am talking about the criminal justice system. I’m not. I’m talking about whether or not somebody who has a moral responsibility for causing another person’s death received the appropriate treatment.
Seriously, do you not recognize that those are two completely different notions? Yes, the criminal justice system is in place to ensure (in the ideal case) this ‘appropriate treatment’, whatever one may mean by that, but the question of ‘has something wrong been done or not’ is independent of that system. Again, were that not the case, every system would be equal, all just as good, as long as they functioned well, as there would be no system-independent notion of good or bad, and thus, every system would be free to set these notions for itself. But that’s just not how things work, as both history and simple logic amply show.
Take any of the examples I gave, like the ‘it’s not murder if it happened on a Friday’-rule. Your arguments, by and large, could be applied unchanged to the defense of the verdict in that case: everything worked according to the system, so everything went well, and I shouldn’t kvetch. But do you honestly not see any problems at all with such a system?
The state itself only exists to the benefit of the people; putting the abstract entity of state before the concrete reality of the people is a surefire way to corrupt its rule (but that’s beside the point, really).
So, in the case of the Friday rule, would you also argue that there hasn’t been an injustice? Because obviously, you can’t provide any of those requirements—no crime was committed, the jury didn’t overlook anything, and all the facts of the case are clear to everyone. Is it thus OK to kill on Fridays?
I’m not saying that the killers didn’t do wrong. I’m saying that a system that punished them without sufficient evidence would do a greater wrong, I’m saying that no-one has yet presented sufficient evidence to convict them, and I’m saying that two wrongs don’t make a right, and because of that there has been no failure of the legal system here.
To take your example that it’s legal to kill on Fridays. Assuming that law has been passed by a legitimate Government, I’d say the following. You may say I shouldn’t kill on Fridays, you may say I’m morally responsible for the death of anyone I kill on Fridays. You may say I’m evil and will burn in Hell if I kill on a Friday. What you may not say is that I may not kill on a Friday, or that I should be punished by the State for doing so. Should you do so, you are wrong, and should I be so punished, the system has failed.
To extend that, should you know I killed someone, but not know what day it’s on, you may not say I’m a murderer, because you can’t know that. If it cannot be proven that it wasn’t a Friday, I must be found not guilty, and the system will have worked perfectly if I’m freed. I hope all this is clear.
If you disagree that anyone should be allowed kill on a Friday in a fashion they would not be able to do on another day, your appropriate response is to change the law - as you, presumably as a voter in the relevant jurisdiction, have not just the ability but the responsibility to attempt to do - not to criticise the jury and the courts in general for doing their job.
That was actually sort of my point - the harm that someone has done as a murderer is to the people as a whole, not to any individuals from the point of view of the law, and that is what justifies the state punishing someone. It is not designed for individual vengeance, and in my opinion we are all better off for that.
Yes, perfectly, though still beside the point. I’m not saying that you should be convicted of murder in this system, but that you still would be guilty—not by the standards the system sets for itself, but simply due to the fact that you committed a morally reprehensible act. Let me ask again: do you hold that it would be just that somebody who killed somone on a Friday will not be guilty of murder?
The one thing I disagree with here is that I may say that you should be punished by the state for killing on a Friday; in fact, that’s exactly what I would be saying should I vote accordingly for a change in policy. But I’m glad you now seem to at least recognize the possibility that the system may work, but still be wrong in what it ends up doing.
And let’s not loose sight of the fact that as yet, it hasn’t been shown that the system even did work—nobody so far has even tried to provide any additional evidence ameliorating what can be clearly seen in the video.
I critizised the jury or court where?
First, the vengeance angle is another one of those things I have no idea where you get them from; you seem awfully intent to read something into my posts that simply isn’t present.
More to the point, of course, the first and foremost harm done by a murderer is to the person they kill—I would have thought that obvious. In fact, the whole institution of state, legislation, etc., is in place to minimize this harm—to the people, not to the state.
The video alone is proof a crime was committed. A man was beaten, with malicious intent and those actions resulted in his death.
With the very important difference that I’ve immediately rejected my own view on the O.J. Simpson trial. Yeah, I think the verdict was wrong…and nobody gives a damn what I think…even myself!
I’ve asked you several times, and not gotten an answer. What are you calling for?
If that’s all you’re saying…then you’ve said it, and we can move on. I value your opinion on the matter about as much as I value my own opinion on the O.J. Simpson verdict…which ain’t much, if any at all. People have opinions. No news there!
This is “Great Debates.” How do I debate an opinion? I like anchovies on pizza; where’s the debate?
Nope: the video shows a violent act was committed. We all know that violent acts can be perfectly legal, most notably self-defense. The video doesn’t show enough context to determine if the violence was criminal. A jury, more fully informed, felt it was not. I trust them more than I trust members of an internet debating society.
Yes, obviously, that’s the point of your hypothetical, that it’s not murder on a Friday.
No, you may not call for me to be punished for acting in a legal fashion. You may call for a change in the law so that people who act that way in the future may be punished, but not for me, who acted legally.
No, why should anyone do so? The burden of proof is on those who claim guilt. To do so, you should show the evidence that the jury saw, and how it does in fact prove guilt, or show some evidence that wasn’t admitted to the trial but should have been. Simply repeating the false claim that the video proves murder doesn’t achieve that.
When you repeatedly claim that these men should be punished, despite the fact that those who have seen all the evidence, and have the responsibility to make that decision, disagree.
Well, you are neither seeking justice nor redress for the family, so vengeance is the most likely next option. You are seeking to have someone punished for the death, no matter whether they are guilty or not. That will neither be just, nor will it compensate the family.
Then you once again misunderstand the criminal justice system. It is not concerned with the harm to the individual, except insofar as that harm proves that a crime occurred, it is concerned with the harm to the state. Compare the names of criminal trials to civil ones to see this.
Anyway, the people are the state, and it is the harm to them collectively that is the issue, not the individual harm to the specific victim. Of course, the reason these things are illegal in the first place is because they harm individuals, but once again you are confusing the legislature with the judiciary.
No, it is not. The video alone proves none of those things, most importantly it doesn’t prove that anyone dies.
Please note, I’m not disputing that he died, only that the video proves that.
Also, they were not charged generically with “a crime”. That’s not how it works, there needs to be a specific crime, and each element of it needs to be proven. As I’ve said previously, this video is strong evidence of a crime, which should (and did) lead to a major investigation, but is not by itself proof of anything.
How does one reject one’s own view? Do you believe that you don’t believe what you believe? It’s a trick I haven’t learned, sorry.
But still, even in thinking that the verdict was wrong, you’re holding the same stance I hold towards the Kelly Thomas trial; so at least, now we agree that it’s possible to come to that conclusion even though ‘the system worked’. You disagree with me in that this isn’t anything to debate, in which case, don’t debate it. Personally, I think it’s a very good possibility to refine opinions and perhaps reach agreement to debate them, but that’s not really a meta-debate I want to have right now.
Well, nothing, that’s why I asked! All I wanted to do is to examine whether the verdict reached in the case is defensible in the light of the evidence we know of, but apparently, that’s not allowed.
I didn’t ask whether it was murder, but whether it is just that it isn’t. Is it?
Same difference. The important point is simply that just because the systems says its right, doesn’t mean it is.
So you honestly hold it’s not permissible to disagree with a jury verdict? Do I really have to accept any jury ruling without questioning it?
This is such a crass misreading that I basically must assume malicious intent. I’ve been very careful about saying that I want punishment only for those that are guilty, and this because that’s what I consider justice. Despite your repeated false claims, I’m not rallying up a pitchforks and torches mob.
Uh, you mean where it says ‘the people’…? You’re confusing the means with the ends. The justice system may protect the state, but the state, again, exists only as a means towards keeping harm from the people. The ultimate end is to have those living within the state do so in the greatest possible safety.
I’m not confusing them, the difference just doesn’t matter for present purposes, as we’re talking about the ultimate ends, not the means by which they are supposed to be achieved, nor their precise structures.
:rolleyes: Cause of death was officially attributed to the beating. The video is a record of the event.
That’s a meaningless question, and that’s why you’re failing to understand what’s happening. You can fairly ask if it’s right or wrong that an act is legal, but justice is applying the laws correctly and fairly, not determining what the laws are. Morality and justice are not the same thing, and you should stop conflating them.
No, you can and should question it, but to do so from a position of ignorance is foolish, and potentially dangerous. You don’t know what evidence the jury saw, so you can’t say whether their judgement is correct. Neither have I, but unlike you I am not assuming that the jury failed at their task without good reason to do so.
Please, show me the evidence you have that the decision was incorrect. Show me how the totality of evidence produced at the trial shows guilt, or show me evidence that should have been admitted but wasn’t. I’ve asked this repeatedly but you keep ignoring it.
Then why do you continue to post here? These men were found not guilty. So why do you still want punishment for them? It’s not out of any concern for justice, that much is clear. I think what you are trying to say is that it’s morally wrong for the system to let men that kill walk free. There’s so much wrong with that that I hardly know where to begin, but the two most obvious ones are that it is not the job of the courts to enforce morality, and that not all killings are crimes.
That people who are morally guilty of harming others often walk free from court is not a failure, it’s a necessary protection for everyone. If the morally guilty can be convicted without sufficient evidence, so can the innocent - that is, you and I, and those you love, and so forth. You want to remove that protection for… what, exactly?
Attributed in a separate piece of evidence. That’s my point, the video alone doesn’t prove a great deal, let alone murder. For some reason, no-one seems to be willing to provide a summary of the evidence the jury saw, was this trial not reported on?
Perhaps we’re having a language issue. I take ‘just’ to mean, as defined here, ‘morally fair, upright, righteous, equitable’, which doesn’t have anything to do with the law at all. So, is it ‘morally fair, upright, righteous, equitable’ that people can kill at will on Fridays? Is it just to let a killer run free, because his act happened to occur on a Friday?
If this is a meaningless question, then once more, every justice system would be just as good as any other, as there would be no further fact of the matter regarding its justness.
But morality is the source of justice, and if the latter fails to accord with the former, then it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to. I’m not equating the two (much less conflating them), I am using the former to judge the latter, which is how every system of justice is evaluated (and should it be found wanting, replaced). Denying the possibility of this is making a farce of the justice system.
But this whole thread is an attempt to alleviate that ignorance—and all that’s been offered as a response is ‘you can’t ask those questions’!
Really? That is what you think I’m saying, even though I’ve outright stated that that isn’t what I’m saying? You should maybe try not to argue against some weird caricature of what I’m posting, but re-read my posts without your preconceived notions of what you believe I’m saying.
Maybe; I don’t know that. But that doesn’t mean the system is as good as it gets. In almost any system, there are too many that are guilty that walk, and too many innocents that are convicted; again, that’s why, historically, every system we had eventually got at the very least amended. So unless you want to argue that now the perfect system is finally in place, you have to allow for the possibility of further refinements; but then, it’s simply false that any change in policy would necessarily lead to more innocents being convicted.
Are we talking about the law or not? If not, the it all becomes irrelevant without any deep discussion of why it’s legal to kill on Friday. Justice, in the sense of the justice system, doesn’t and shouldn’t care about that. Whether it’s moral or not should have already been decided when the law was framed.
A justice system should be judged on how well it judges, that is, how well it finds people guilty or not by the rules it should work by. Someone going free because they have not been proven to break the law is just, fair, and equitable. Even if the law is immoral.
A legal system that finds someone guilty who is not proven so is unjust and immoral. Finding someone guilty of something that should be against the law when it isn’t is reprehensible, immoral behaviour.
You can ask the question “why did the jury find these people not guilty”. What you shouldn’t be asking is “why did they find them not guilty based only on the evidence presented in this thread”, as that doesn’t come close to proving murder.
I’ve tried hard to answer the question of “why should a jury find someone not guilty even when their conduct is obviously wrong”, which I think is one of the questions you’re asking.
Well perhaps you should clarify what you’re saying rather than insisting that I’m maliciously distorting your views.
I’m not saying any system is perfect, far from it, but I disagree with your contention that too many guilty people walk. I want a system where it’s hard to prove guilt, I want that protection from false or shoddy accusations. I don’t want the state to have the power to convict me, or anyone, without utterly compelling evidence.
Yes, the system can be refined, but that’s irrelevant to this discussion. There is a persistent claim that the system, as it is today, failed to do what it should in this case. but no-one is willing or able to say how. It is not meant to find people guilty just because you, or anyone else, believes they are. No just system could do so.
We disagree greatly on the video. It provides a great deal of information. It shows intent to intimidate and incite a physical confrontation followed by excessive violence that endangered the life of the person they killed.
Which doesn’t prove any crime, let alone murder. It provides plenty of evidence that should lead to a further investigation - an investigation that happened and, for reasons that don’t appear to have been shared, ultimately ended with a jury concluding that there was no proof of criminal guilt.
It showed enough to get them sacked, and may well be determined to have showed enough to make them liable in a civil suit. But that wasn’t your claim, you claimed it proves murder. It doesn’t, and frankly I doubt there’s any video that, on it’s own, could ever prove murder.