Three ... *three* things to consider

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #315,944 by drook 10/21/09 12:23:21 AM Reply	Three ... three things to consider 1. Did he do the acts alleged? 2. Do those acts fit the definition of the charge? 3. What punishment is appropriate? If it's true that "'not guilty' means something closer to 'my actions do not fall in the definition of the charge'", then what should the verdict be if you don't think he did the alleged acts? -- Drew
Post #315,948 by static 10/21/09 12:49:51 AM Reply	Two. We were only considering items 1 and 2. It was not our role to decide the sentence. It definitely looked like he did the acts alleged, but there was the crucial aspect of permission: it really looked like she was the instigator, not he. Besides, we only saw half the evidence. Wade. Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers? A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.

TX Jury Consulted Bible Before Sentencing Man to Death - (lincoln) - (26) - Oct. 20, 2009, 03:00:46 PM EDT

Curiously, I think I'm okay with this one - (drook) - (25) - Oct. 20, 2009, 03:18:09 PM EDT

Indeed. - (static) - Oct. 20, 2009, 06:53:16 PM EDT

It gives me the willies. - (Another Scott) - (23) - Oct. 20, 2009, 07:49:14 PM EDT

why not? The oath is given on a bible in some places - (boxley) - (22) - Oct. 20, 2009, 09:09:39 PM EDT

I don't know how to explain it better. - (Another Scott) - (21) - Oct. 20, 2009, 09:44:05 PM EDT

Not evidence - (drook) - (20) - Oct. 20, 2009, 10:27:26 PM EDT

Maybe the wrong word, there. - (Another Scott) - (19) - Oct. 20, 2009, 10:41:34 PM EDT

review the 5ths court decision - (boxley) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2009, 10:48:42 PM EDT

How about the 4th? - (Another Scott) - (2) - Oct. 20, 2009, 11:25:56 PM EDT

immaterial not the ussc divided until then -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Oct. 20, 2009, 11:44:16 PM EDT

The line the bothers me - (drook) - Oct. 21, 2009, 12:18:24 AM EDT

Yes and no - (drook) - (14) - Oct. 20, 2009, 10:53:15 PM EDT

I had a lawyer explain exactly what 'guilty' meant. - (static) - (3) - Oct. 20, 2009, 11:32:29 PM EDT

Good points. I think it's similar here. -NT - (Another Scott) - Oct. 20, 2009, 11:42:59 PM EDT

Three ... *three* things to consider - (drook) - (1) - Oct. 21, 2009, 12:23:21 AM EDT

Two. - (static) - Oct. 21, 2009, 12:49:51 AM EDT

We're concerned about different things. - (Another Scott) - (9) - Oct. 20, 2009, 11:40:57 PM EDT

perhaps you ought to read the damn thing then - (boxley) - (8) - Oct. 20, 2009, 11:50:20 PM EDT

I've read much of it, thank you very much. - (Another Scott) - (2) - Oct. 21, 2009, 12:07:10 AM EDT

This skews juries in favor of conviction - (drook) - (1) - Oct. 21, 2009, 12:29:12 AM EDT

Not necessarily. - (Another Scott) - Oct. 21, 2009, 07:07:22 AM EDT

So reverse the circumstances... - (Mycroft_Holmes_Iv) - (4) - Oct. 21, 2009, 12:44:36 AM EDT

Welcome back! -NT - (Another Scott) - Oct. 21, 2009, 08:25:37 AM EDT

Its been back... - (folkert) - Oct. 21, 2009, 08:31:53 AM EDT

should be fine to pass around, welcome back -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Oct. 21, 2009, 02:03:05 PM EDT

Re: should be fine to pass around, welcome back - (Mycroft_Holmes_Iv) - Oct. 21, 2009, 10:51:13 PM EDT

Eschew obfuscation.
58 ms