Originally Posted by MontyB

Oddly enough the explanation of "reasonable doubt" given to us was, if you were a betting man and had to make a bet what way would you call.


This alone should be an indication on how flawed the jury system is.

The simple reality is that in my experience fact and evidence is secondary to personal opinion and impressions.

In charm school they would say marvelous to your explanation. In the Navy we just call it B******T.

I really question whether you have ever been on a jury. I expect New Zealand courts are every bit as professional as US Courts, so your above statement is either a poor joke or a lie. It would be an indication of how flawed New Zealand Courts are if it was true. But you don't have the death penalty anyway so your courts can be more comical.

Reasonable doubt:
A standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal proceeding.
"Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...asonable+Doubt

"Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Oh, how remorseful. It is good to see your "softer side".

Ahhh,... how we all love a wise acre. Just read what I write, I'm not particularly interested in what you think of what I write.

Did you stop to think that in some things, the effluxion of time does not alter the findings, we could have a study done every week, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

Funnily enough, being a hard @rse is not nearly as important as getting it right, and they don't always do that.

Going sour like a spoilt kid just because I don't agree with you ain't gunna win you any points here. Not with me nor the debate.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

In charm school they would say marvelous to your explanation. In the Navy we just call it B******T.

I really question whether you have ever been on a jury. I expect New Zealand courts are every bit as professional as US Courts, so your above statement is either a poor joke or a lie. It would be an indication of how flawed New Zealand Courts are if it was true. But you don't have the death penalty anyway so your courts can be more comical.

Sadly none of it is B******T, that was explanation given by the court registrar after the selection of the jury and I think my experiences of jury duty indicate the folly of relying on 12 people who don't want to be there to do a job well.

As for the rest you have done nothing to validate your argument other than state time and again the near enough is good enough for the death penalty and try to disregard anything that doesn't fit into your argument.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Ahhh,... how we all love a smart @rse. Just read what I write, I'm not particularly interested in what you think I write.

Did you stop to think that in some things, the effluxion of time does not alter the findings, we could have a study done every week, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

Going sour like a spoilt kid just because I don't agree with you ain't gunna win you any points here. Not with me nor the debate.

So apparently advances in forensics won't aid in limiting improper verdicts.

I guess you sleep better knowing paroled murders are killing innocent people about about 10 times the rate of innocent people being convicted.

23 innocents convicted in 87 years 23/87 X 10 equals 2.64 inocents in 10 years.

30 murderers in 10 years versus 2.64 in ten years

The night after John Allen Mohammad was executed I slept like a baby.

I don't care if you agree with me or not, as it seems you are argueing with your self.

Or did I miss read your post # 12:
"All I can say is that he certainly won't be doing that again." quote senojekips
I took that to mean you agreed with the execution.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Sadly none of it is B******T, that was explanation given by the court registrar after the selection of the jury and I think my experiences of jury duty indicate the folly of relying on 12 people who don't want to be there to do a job well.

As for the rest you have done nothing to validate your argument other than state time and again the near enough is good enough for the death penalty and try to disregard anything that doesn't fit into your argument.

I am sorry that you live in a country where the citizens do not take their civic duties seriously.

The difference is I use supported facts versus unsubstantiated opinion.

I do disregard rambling unsupported twitter.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

So apparently advances in forensics won't aid in limiting improper verdicts.

I guess you sleep better knowing paroled murders are killing innocent people about about 10 times the rate of innocent people being convicted.

23 innocents convicted in 87 years 23/87 X 10 equals 2.64 inocents in 10 years.

30 murderers in 10 years versus 2.64 in ten years

The night after John Allen Mohammad was executed I slept like a baby.

I don't care if you agree with me or not, as it seems you are argueing with your self.

Or did I miss read your post # 12:
"All I can say is that he certainly won't be doing that again." quote senojekips
I took that to mean you agreed with the execution.

I do, but they have to get it 100% correct, something that is not possible at the moment. All of your argument still does not address the state sanctioned murder of innocent persons.

The law and "forensics" still make more than their fair share of mistakes, the biggest thing in their favour is that they have found several persons on death row to be innocent. When it involves the life of an innocent person, near enough, is not good enough.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I don't care if you agree with me or not, as it seems you are argueing with your self.

Or did I miss read your post # 12:
"All I can say is that he certainly won't be doing that again." quote senojekips
I took that to mean you agreed with the execution.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I do, but they have to get it 100% correct, something that is not possible at the moment. All of your argument still does not address the state sanctioned murder of innocent persons.

The law and "forensics" still make more than their fair share of mistakes, the biggest thing in their favour is that they have found several persons on death row to be innocent. When it involves the life of an innocent person, near enough, is not good enough.

I did say the system is not perfect. I do accept that inocent people have been executed. To me that is more acceptable to society than having murders go free to kill again.

I have answered your question. Are you going to answer mine? Did I miss read your post #12?

All I can say is that he certainly won't be doing that again." quote senojekips
I took that to mean you agreed with the execution.

Do you or do you not agree that John Allen Mohammad should have been executed?

As I think you agree he should have been executed. How do you know he was 100% guilty as you require? How did you justify your requirement of 100%.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I have answered your question. Are you going to answer mine? Did I miss read your post #12?

All I can say is that he certainly won't be doing that again." quote senojekips
I took that to mean you agreed with the execution.

Do you or do you not agree that John Allen Mohammad should have been executed?

As I think you agree he should have been executed. How do you know he was 100% guilty as you require? How did you justify your requirement of 100%.

It is my understanding that the man has already been executed, how do you think that he is going to do it again? But that does not mean that I am 100% in favour of the death penalty.

I have no idea as to whether he should have been executed or not, as I have no idea as to whether if he was innocent or guilty, I'm not even familiar with the case.

Having said that, I do feel that there is a place for the death penalty,.......... but certainly not under the present arrangements.

Like I said, just read what I say, don't think too hard about it, as people tend to see things in the light that favours their own argument. It is this type of human frailty, that makes the jury system so open to error. e.g. People with closed minds on subjects like this should never qualify for jury duty,... that doesn't leave many who would qualify. We all have opinions and our own set of values, I certainly wouldn't qualify, as I have almost no faith in many of our laws, the legal system and the people who implement it.

Fortunately for some alleged criminals, I live well outside of the maximum distance to be called.

Originally Posted by senojekips

It is my understanding that the man has already been executed, how do you think that he is going to do it again? But that does not mean that I am 100% in favour of the death penalty.

Few people are 100% in favor of anything. Reservations are probably healthy.

Originally Posted by senojekips

I have no idea as to whether he should have been executed or not, as I have no idea as to whether if he was innocent or guilty, I'm not even familiar with the case.

But you had a need to comment anyway.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Having said that, I do feel that there is a place for the death penalty,.......... but certainly not under the present arrangements.

What arrangements would you like to see? You condemn without offering a solution.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Like I said, just read what I say, don't think too hard about it, as people tend to see things in the light that favours their own argument. It is this type of human frailty, that makes the jury system so open to error. e.g. People with closed minds on subjects like this should never qualify for jury duty,... that doesn't leave many who would qualify. We all have opinions and our own set of values, I certainly wouldn't qualify, as I have almost no faith in many of our laws, the legal system and the people who implement it.

"People with closed minds on subjects like this should never qualify for jury duty,... that doesn't leave many who would qualify."
That is why there is a jury selection system. It is also why on my last jury duty, it took three days to select a jury for a trial that took 1 1/2 days to present the evidence.

"I certainly wouldn't qualify, as I have almost no faith in many of our laws,"
You might not as the selection system seems to do a fair job of weeding out people who can't be impartial and fair to the defendant.
It is a pity you live in a country with system you don't believe in or support.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Fortunately for some alleged criminals, I live well outside of the maximum distance to be called.

You seem to indicate here you could not be fair and impartial, I am kind of surprised you even inserted the word "alleged" in your statement.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I am sorry that you live in a country where the citizens do not take their civic duties seriously.

Right and Americans take that crap seriously?
That's not true.
Everyone I know who's done jury duty in the US felt it was a major pain in the butt and couldn't be bothered.
And seriously, is it possible for you to make one post where you disagree without trolling?