I think he is referring to this

"Criminals thrive upon the intolerence of society's understanding.....and political correctness"

lol :P

 

No. I was infuriated by your scooter. Only joking, you are right in your assumption.
have a nice day !

 

What is even worse is when lawyers are also politicians - a hybrid scum-bag, two for the price of one.
Mind, US govt doesn't help with Guantanomo Bay - it just provides fuel for the anti-justice lobby.
Here's another one for you. Tony B. Liar's wife is a lawyer [so is he ]. She went before the Court of Human Rights to argue for the human rights of a convicted paedophile. To have human rights you must first be human surely.

 

The govt is running scared on holding a referendum of capital punishment because they know what the answer would be from the people. All because the pen-pushers in Brussels are against it. I am rapidly becoming more in tune with your gun laws.

 

A comedian (can't remember who .... maybe Dave Chappel) had a pretty good idea for gun control. He says that guns should be readilly available, but they should make the bullets cost like $1000 a piece! That way there are no innocent bystanders and automatic weapons wouldn't be used for anything just because of the cost. His skit also went as far as the criminals shooting someone and going to pull the bullet out of them once their dead.

 

*ROFL* I think I recall seeing that one.... He makes a good point, if bullets cost that much people would probably stop their spray and pray....

 

Manufacturers would have to be required by law to sell bullets at that price wholesale, otherwise if it was a tax tacked on at the store or something it would be easy to disregard under the table.

 

It is appalling and enragingwhen an apparently guilty person goes free. On the other hand, no one willaccept theunjust punishment of a trulyinnocent person.

Thereis no doubt that the power andresources of a State are infinitely greater than that of any individual, gang, or evenorganized crime establishment within it, so, with all that power in its hands,why can't the Stateconvict and punishthe guilty and set free the innocent? The answer is simple.The "design" andperceived shortcomings (the limitationson thatPower)ofpresent-day systems of justiceinCanada, Britain and theUShave as their foundationthe results of previouslegal proceedings - "precedent", if you will.

If everyone involved inlegal proceedingssimply told the truth, trials and other legal proceedingswould be much simpler, cheaperand, most importantly, more JUST,for all concerned, but this is not a description of the real world in which will live. The Accused, under the advice of legal counsel, will say and dowhat isnecessary to be released. The legal representatives of theState, andtheir police and investigators, will dowhat isnecessary to obtainthe Accused's conviction.

Unless their is agoodvideo, orother unequivocal record, of a crimebeing committed,historyhas proven that it isvery difficult for any system of justice to come to a truly just outcome. In the real world, we do not have the TV or movie priviledge of seeing what actually happened at the time of the crime. (We don't reallyknow if Dirty Harry is telling the truth, or not.)

In the end, it is the integrity of every singleindividual involvedinthe State'sprosecutorial process that has shaped, and will shape in the future, our society's systems of justice. And it is becausesome individualson that side of the "scale of justice" haveabused their power, that today's system of justice is what it is. Those abuses have been so frequent that limitations and rules of conducthave been imposed onindividuals whoact on behalf of the State - these in order to prevent such abuse in the future.These limitationssometimes impede or preventa just outcome, but that is theconsequence society must accept for the past misdeeds on the part of individuals acting on behalf of, and using the fullpower of,the State.

Here is a good examplewith whichthe British peoplewill be intimately familiar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six

I believe the reason that a country might now bereluctant to extraditea "Muslim cleric"to the US for possibleprosecutionis quite obvious.

 

This is also of course based on whether or not the video is even admissable... That's always been a pet pieve of mine (I understand why it exists in some cases) but how can you ask a jury to decide someones guilt without all the evidence? It's like us trying to troubleshoot a car that won't start and not being allowed to know that their's no motor in it because knowledge of the motor was obtained without consent or something like that...

So the question then is. The laws that protect us from people illegally obtaining information to protect our freedoms are the same ones that prevent a known murderer from going to prison. Are we as a people willing to give up our right to a private conversation in order to increase conviction rates?

 

The "Birmingham Six" were not released because they were innocent but because their conviction was "unsafe" . It was because of a procedural error, not an evidential one.

Human Rights - there is an appalling two-page spread in my morning paper, written by a very senior and well-respected political commentator. He is covering the primary in South Carolina.
The headlines are " The state where prejudice lives on" - " Can Obama get racist deep south on his side " and there is a photo of a bunch of nutters waving Confederacy flags and offensive slogans.
I want someone to tell me that this is not a true state of affairs in the southern states given that the commentator is British, Jewish, and so has no axe to grind - just an observer.
I would hate this to be true.