Snuff this SOB

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Circumstantial evidence is enough to cast suspicion on somebody, but it should NEVER be enough for a conviction. Eye witness testimony is better, but even that can be doubtful.

Never? (Those sweeping generalizations again.) Isn't what counts for conviction in a Jury trial the votes of the Jurers based on what they actually took into account, regardless of what they were told to take into acount/or not?

Of course. That's why I said "should NEVER be enough" because the jury can convict just because they take a dislike to the accused. Members of the jury in the Scott Peterson case admitted as much after sentencing. That's one reason why prosecutors try to present defendants as ratbastards, even when that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

 

[Boxlicker101]

i'm afraid 'be extra stringent as to evidence' or 'reject circumstantial evidence' are not plausible ways to insure the 'right man' is executed, and these sorts of notions, as proposed by seacat and boxliker have no real basis in the law and its practice:

seacat: I have this thing about circumstantial evidence. To me it is fiction.

apparently agreed to by boxliker, reciting a wilding inaccurate account of the Scott Petersen affair.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article3883297.ece
From The Times [United Kingdom ]
May 6, 2008

Circumstantial evidence enough to convict Nat Fraser, judges rule
===
US Law Encyclopedia
http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.
==
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1938/1938scr0-396/1938scr0-396.html

Supreme Court of Canada
The King v. Comba, [1938] S.C.R. 396
Date: 1938-06-23

It is admitted by the Crown, as the fact is, that the verdict rests solely upon a basis of circumstantial evidence. In such cases, by the long settled rule of the common law, which is the rule of law in Canada, the jury, before finding a prisoner guilty upon such evidence, must be satisfied not only that the circumstances are consistent with a conclusion that the criminal act was committed by the accused, but also that the facts are such as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the accused is the guilty person.

see also,

http://books.google.ca/books?id=LH8...mstantial evidence conviction canada&f=false

A distinguished stateman and orator [Burke]... has advanced the unqualified proposition that when circumstantial evidence is in its greatest perfection, that is, when it is most abundant in circumstances, it is much superior to positive proof. (Canada Law Journal, Vol V, p. 34

It has been truly said... that, though in most cases of circustantial evidence, there is a possibility that the prisoner may be innocent., the same often holds in cases of direct evidence, where witnesses may err as to the identity of a person, or corruptly falsify....the testimony of the senses cannot be implicitly dependend upon, even where the veracity of the witness is unquestionable. Thomas Davenport, an eminent barrister... swore positively to the persons of two men, whom he charged with robbing him in the open daylight. But they positively proved an alibi, and the men were acquitted: Rex v. Wood and Brown, 28.... Many of the cases where conviction was had upon evidence which was indirect or or circumstantial illustrate the assertion of Burke [that the best circumstantial evidence is superior in probative value, to direct evidence]....

First, I have to wonder why you are citing examples in Canada and the UK when the thread is about evidence and punishment in the USA. The laws in the three nations are similar, but not identical. In the Nat Fraser case, for instance, since there was no proof that a crime had even occurred, he would not have been convicted and probably not even charged in the USA.

This might be a matter of definition. To me, the fact that somebody had motive means and opportunity amounts to circumstantial evidence. The fact that most women who are murdered at home by a husband or SO is circumstantial. These things are true, but they should not be enough to get a conviction.

What does "wilding inaccurate" mean?

 

[Pure]

to bach's liquor:

i cited one example from UK, one from US, one from Canada.

i'm sorry you found that puzzling:

blhave to wonder why you are citing examples in Canada and the UK when the thread is about evidence and punishment in the USA.


here's the US portion, again, to help you focus.

US Law Encyclopedia

http://www.answers.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence

//Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence" (Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.//

---
bl://To me, the fact that somebody had motive means and opportunity amounts to circumstantial evidence. //

the courts prefer the law dictionaries, and don't possess the Handy BL Lexicon of Legal Terminology.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]That's why I said "should NEVER be enough" because the jury can convict just because they take a dislike to the accused. Members of the jury in the Scott Peterson case admitted as much after sentencing. That's one reason why prosecutors try to present defendants as ratbastards, even when that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

Box, you may as well be saying that you support the death penalty, but only unicorns have the untarnished soul to perform the execution by impaling the convicted with their horns.

You can threaten and prosecute and legislate and pontificate all you want - if you believe that's going to do fuck all to keep innocent people from being convicted, you're about as stupid as I think you are.

A justice system that only works in theory is not really a justice system, is it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, you may as well be saying that you support the death penalty, but only unicorns have the untarnished soul to perform the execution by impaling the convicted with their horns.

You can threaten and prosecute and legislate and pontificate all you want - if you believe that's going to do fuck all to keep innocent people from being convicted, you're about as stupid as I think you are.

A justice system that only works in theory is not really a justice system, is it?

The system doesn't always work, but what system does? What I am saying is that the standard of proof of guilt in a criminal case should be as strong in actuality as it is in theory. Some currently permitted evidence should be banned, such as jailhouse snitches and autopsy photos and other things that are known to be unreliable or are only meant to inflame juries. I could probably think of some more things, but I'm only suggesting, not writing the law.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]I could probably think of some more things, but I'm only suggesting, not writing the law.

Did it ever occur to you that people who write laws and develop systems of justice might have considered it in greater depth? That, if it's something you can come up with off the top of your head, that maybe they've thought about it at a somewhat more sophisticated level of analysis?

You're writing the law in reverse. You're saying, "People should be put to death for certain crimes", and then working backwards from that. So that all of your arguments lead to the conclusion that, "People should be put to death for certain crimes."

The world doesn't conform to your principles. Repeating them louder doesn't make it so.

The fact is, innocent people have been executed. And there is nothing to suggest that any changes one can make to the justice system can change that. You can say, "Crack down on rogue cops!", but that's not a problem that you can simply wish away. A cop isn't "rogue" until he is, at which point the cracking down has come too late. Threat of prosecution isn't the same thing as prevention. You can say, "The evidence has to be super-duper evidence!", and a new test may still prove the former super-duper evidence wrong. Experts will still be bought, or proven in retrospect to have been fools.

As MzDeviancy succinctly pointed out earlier, support for the death penalty "in principle" means that, in practice, innocent people will sometimes be put to death by the State. Is that something you're comfortable with? That's the principle that's at stake, here.

 

[Pure]

thoughts

every human-designed procedure is subject to mistakes and errors: e.g. assembly line production; flying in a jet airliner; crossing the street in a crosswalk, on a green light; drinking the water that comes from your tap [Walkerton, Ontario, 2000-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_Tragedy ] ; taking a Tylenol capsule from a bottle you bought at the drugstore [see, Chicago, 1982 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders ]

jury trials, judicial penalties, and punishments are another example.

one wants to make the errors as few as possible, since "innocents" pay the price. procedures have to be reviewed and made more perfect; leaving aside the death penalty, life without parole has also been exacted on the basis of bungled trials and police work, and contrary to popular perceptions, appeals based on exonerating evidence later discovered, are rare.

so i don't think the 'errors' arguements against the death penalty can be the primary ones, excepting perhaps the well known likelihood that such *errors* most commonly afflict the poor and non-white.

that said, the fate of the *guilty* parties, by race and SES (status), suggests that the death penalty is unfairly administered. 70 percent of all prisoners in the South are Black, and most of the US South is not more than 50% Black; generally, in the US, 35% of executed persons [US] are Black, whereas Black persons are about 12% of the overall US pop.

executions of the underage [under 18; or under 15] and the mentally retarded are another issue, occuring to relatively recent times.

again, these problems apply to the known and clearly guilty [correctly tried and sentenced] persons.

==

a main reason to question the death penalty, at least for 90% of its examples, is its harm to those who administer it, on the 'front lines' as it were--and indirectly and more remotely, to the society as a whole. although denizens of AH, such as Box, routinely claim they'll be happy to strangle convicted killers with their bare hands, those who in fact, have the routine chore of killing tend to be coarsened and negatively affected by the experiences. while this may apply to foot soldiers as well, the latter are, at least sometimes, defending their homelands from death and plunder; i.e. their actions are necessary.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

dammit, i thought this thread was about JBJ.

i thought there was a poll or something.

 

[stephen55]

What's a few wrongful executions every now and then........

Supreme Court of Canada
The King v. Comba, [1938] S.C.R. 396
Date: 1938-06-23

It is admitted by the Crown, as the fact is, that the verdict rests solely upon a basis of circumstantial evidence. In such cases, by the long settled rule of the common law, which is the rule of law in Canada, the jury, before finding a prisoner guilty upon such evidence, must be satisfied not only that the circumstances are consistent with a conclusion that the criminal act was committed by the accused, but also that the facts are such as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the accused is the guilty person.

This definition from the Supreme Court of Canada, 1938, as to when to convict Aon circumstantial evidence, did little good for Steven Truscott.

Giving a school classmate a ride on your bicycle on the day she disappeared is hardly sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that you killed her. It is also hardly sufficient to reasonably conclude that giving her a ride on your bicycle precludes the possibility that someone else killed her.

I'm not sure what the judge in the Truscott case felt about the jury's decision to convict. Having been handed a guilty verdict on a charge of murder, the law of the land at the time compelled the judge to sentence Truscott to death.

and contrary to popular perceptions, appeals based on exonerating evidence later discovered, are rare.

Not according to the Innocence Project.

According to the Innocence Project of Florida, Caravella is the 252nd person in the nation to be exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, and the 12th in Florida. DNA is a major tool to ensure justice, but unfortunately, there are still some resisters.

In Canada, these are some of the people who were wrongly convicted of murder (Hanemaayer was wrongly convicted of a knife-point nattack on a 15 year old girl).

* James Driskell
* Anthony Hanemaayer
* Donald Marshall Jr.
* Simon Marshall
* David Milgaard
* Guy Paul Morin
* William Mullins-Johnson
* Romeo Phillion
* Thomas Sophonow
* Steven Truscott
* Kyle Unger
* Erin Walsh

I'd guess that the number of people wrongly convicted of murder, sexual assault and other serious crimes is large. I wonder how many were put to death?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

dammit, i thought this thread was about JBJ.

i thought there was a poll or something.

I'm surprised someone hasnt drawn boobs on your back.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

I'm surprised someone hasnt drawn boobs on your back.

ditto about the bollocks on your face.

... oh, they have!

... cunt.

 

[WRJames]

I a m startled by many of these comments. I take it none of you have ever served as a juror in a criminal case, or a grand juror?

Having done both, I can say first, that the evidence presented to a jury may be only a fraction of the evidence available to the prosecution. The jury may be forced to make a decision based on what is legally admissible. As a mathematician, I struggled as a juror with what represents "proof" in a legal sense. Yes, it would be nice if every case had overwhelming evidence for conviction -- but in fact, in many cases the only witnesses are the perpetrators and the victims. Even if the victims survive, they may not have a clear recollection of events. So that brings into play the notion of "reasonable" doubt. I don't know how many times our trial jury asked the judge for a clarification of that. "Beyond a resonable doubt" does not mean "beyond all doubt." The distinction is murky, subtle, maddeningly difficult to pin down. But eventually you have to get twelve jurors in agreement to get a conviction.

A grand jury gets to see more case, more evidence, since admissiblity is not an issue at that point. Even so, you can see cases evaporating in the ADA's offices before they get to the grand jury -- witnesses who neve make it into the grand jury room. Sometimes a case will fall apart in front of the grand jurors, which is a really interesting experience.

At a minimum, if the death penalty is applied, the evidence should be overwhelming -- no doubt about it.

Personally, I think life imprisonment is a far harsher punishment.

 

[Pure]

note to stephen

pure: contrary to popular perceptions, [successful] appeals based on exonerating evidence later discovered, are rare.

stephen Not according to the Innocence Project.

According to the Innocence Project of Florida, Caravella is the 252nd person in the nation to be exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, and the 12th in Florida. DNA is a major tool to ensure justice, but unfortunately, there are still some resisters.

In Canada, these are some of the people who were wrongly convicted of murder (Hanemaayer was wrongly convicted of a knife-point nattack on a 15 year old girl).

---

i don't think we disagree on much, here; but surely you agree that 252 cases in the US and 12 in Fla is the tiniest drop in the bucket. what are an innocent person's chances, .0001% ?

but i think you ignored my large point: human procedures, including those for establishing guilt or meting out penalties are inherently flawed. and deaths ensue. a TINY proportion of miscarriages are ever fixed, just as a tiny proportion of restaurant food poisonings are ever figured out and correctly remedied at the source; just as a tiny proportion of deaths on the operating table through the surgeon's error are ever brought to light.

elsewhere in your post, you state life in prison may well be harsher than death. you may indeed be right. so substituting 'life w/o parole' for execution may NOT be all that much more humane.

my general point, however, is that in advancing the argument against capital punishment, pointing out errors is a slender reed to rely upon. i place more reliance on such points as 1) no inherent right to take a life except in immediate self or family defense. 2) executions are barbarous and harm those doing them, and reflect badly on hte society in which they occurr. none have occurred in W. Europe for decades. the US practices (and frequency of execution), as commonly noted, most closely resemble those of China.

 

[stephen55]

I think I may have been arguing the wrong point. What I was trying to get at was the idea that a lot of convictions are wrong. I admit that the chance of a wrongfully convicted prisoner of ever getting the conviction overturned are small.

And yes, the judicial system, being a man made system, is capable of every failure that mankind can invent. As much as we all would like to see it work correctly 100% of the time, I can't see any way of making that come true.

As for...just as a tiny proportion of deaths on the operating table through the surgeon's error are ever brought to light...in Canada, every operating room death or death shortly following surgery is investigated by Tissue and Audit. That's the committee that investigates fuck-ups and other things. If the death was the result of the surgeon's error, it always comes to light. Any attempt by a hospital to cover it up will be discovered and the hospital's accreditation is gone.

That said, Tissue and Audit committees are human.....just like the justice system.

 

[sr71plt]

I a m startled by many of these comments. I take it none of you have ever served as a juror in a criminal case, or a grand juror?

Having done both, I can say first, that the evidence presented to a jury may be only a fraction of the evidence available to the prosecution. The jury may be forced to make a decision based on what is legally admissible.

A good illustration (I think) of this played in this week's episode of The Good Wife, an American TV series on CBS.