babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Lying liars and Alan Dershowitz

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Lying liars and Alan Dershowitz
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 17 April 2005 11:57 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
All other statements made by Professor Dershowitz are blatantly false and utterly preposterous.

On the contrary, it is our claim that the systematic and large-scale torture and ill treatment of Palestinian detainees and prisoners continues to this day

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Insurrection
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6622

posted 18 April 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for Insurrection     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting stuff. Reminds me that there was some criticisms out there suggesting that Alan Dershowitz was a plagiarist I think there was some reference to his current book, but I believe the main references were highlighted in one of his other books. Not sure...
From: exit in the world | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 19 April 2005 08:57 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I could care less about plagiarism. What concerns me more is that he seems to continually come down on the wrong side of things when it comes to torture. In the case of Israel, he minimizes it's importance, in the case of the potential use of torture by the U.S. in their so-called War on Terror, he suggests that we should consider torture in "ticking clock" situations where a person may possess information which could save others' lives. Interesting that this same "ticking clock" analogy is also used by the Israeli government to justify various instances of torture and other human rights abuses - the same ones that Dershowitz likes to ignore.

He's a dick.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDude
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8571

posted 22 April 2005 06:52 PM      Profile for NDude        Edit/Delete Post
Sounds to me like none of you have even bothered to read his book? Otherwise you would know that he is evenly balalnced but could it be that his name ends initz that you are dismayed? Secondly none of you (dicks) could hold a candle to his academic credentials or human rights acomplishments. Just because you are oh-so fashionably politically correct in your condemnation of naything Israeli.
From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 22 April 2005 06:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It fascinates me that these so called open-minded indivduals who always seem to nag us about free thought, democracy and open discussion always seem to turn off the private message function when they register. They then post insipid slurs, instead of formulated arguements and then run away when challenged.

It is almost as if they aren't really as interested in free thought, democracy and open discussion as they would like us to believe. The fact that they seem afraid that someone might PM them (Oh god no! ) says a lot about how open minded they really are.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 22 April 2005 07:02 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As Chomsky says, Dershowitz is a clown. A very highly placed one unfortunately. I've read some of his stuff before, CanWest has run a few features of his on the middleEast which would have been seen as overtly racist if refering to any other ethnic group besides A-rabs and Muslims. Basically saying they're too primitive to be entrusted with sovereignty. Now he argues that "soft" torture can and should be regulated -to protect civilization or somesuch rot. Only saving grace is that he's remarkably feeble for a lawyer at putting forward a plausible argument.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 22 April 2005 07:34 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by NDude:
[QB]Sounds to me like none of you have even bothered to read his book? Otherwise you would know that he is evenly balalnced but could it be that his name ends initz that you are dismayed?

You must know your argument is weak to have opened with an "antisemite" slur. But, if you must know, I have read the book and it amounts to an assertion that while he personally doesn't like torture, if it must be used, it should have the sanction of the courts.

Moreover, as I said above, he also likes to use the ol' "ticking bomb" canard.

Anyway, if you want to go point for point on the book, I could retrieve the pages from the litter box for discussion purposes.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 April 2005 07:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See you, Ndude. Too bad your stay had to be such a short one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 22 April 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No need to cut him off so soon is there? If he's willing or able to argue the point then maybe he should be given more of a chance, if not then we'd know soon enough. I don't care much about the usual insinuations.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 April 2005 08:04 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Erik, I banned him because in another thread he accused babblers of being willing to shovel bodies into the crematorium (and I gave him his first and last warning over that one in that thread), and then in this thread he's calling babblers anti-semites. And he's only been here for a few posts.

So I'm nipping it in the bud now, because I really am not in the mood for that kind of crap, and probably no one else is either. He's obviously just here to troll and insult.

[ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 22 April 2005 08:11 PM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FWIW I think it's a good call, Michelle.
From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
pogge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2440

posted 22 April 2005 08:20 PM      Profile for pogge   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
See you, Ndude.

Thank you, Michelle.


From: Why is this a required field? | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 22 April 2005 09:47 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Erik, I banned him because in another thread he accused babblers of being willing to shovel bodies into the crematorium (and I gave him his first and last warning over that one in that thread), and then in this thread he's calling babblers anti-semites. And he's only been here for a few posts.

So I'm nipping it in the bud now, because I really am not in the mood for that kind of crap, and probably no one else is either. He's obviously just here to troll and insult.


Sorry Michelle, if I saw that comment I wouldn't have protested.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 April 2005 09:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No prob. And thanks, pogge and Anchoress.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 April 2005 10:48 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read three or four of Dershowitz's books, and find him fairly compelling. Unfortunately, his "torture warrant" idea relies on courts far too much.

The applicants will always lie to the court that they think they can stop the nuclear destruction of New York ONLY by torturing someone.

It should always be illegal, as it is now.

People who want to read a good Dershowitz book should read his book on Bush v. Gore, the case that stole the American election. He leaves the Bush justices bloodied and lying in their own droppings.

His latest book is about "The Greatest American Trials". But he includes three of his own, which is overshooting it by three.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 22 April 2005 10:52 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
...His latest book is about "The Greatest American Trials". But he includes three of his own, which is overshooting it by three.

I guess it would be tactless to assume he failed to include any of yours.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 April 2005 10:58 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha! Greatest American trials? Mine?

I think i might get the downtown Toronto award for May 11, 2001, but that's about it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 22 April 2005 11:05 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Feed line: So what happened on May 11, 2001?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 22 April 2005 11:29 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing, I just made it up.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 22 April 2005 11:45 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[Warning: Thread drift] I was going to find the Doonesbury for that date, but liked yesterday's too well, and it's not entirely unconnected to legal matters: here it is.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 April 2005 03:03 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
I could care less about plagiarism.

Actually, I take the plagiarism pretty seriously. While I'm a chemist not a lawyer the same things apply: If you say something and it belongs to someone else, you had better say who you got it from.

You also don't copy wholesale from someone else, claim that you independently researched the material, and then steal their primary sources and reprint them in your book.

It's sheer intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

And for a noted academic and lawyer like Dershowitz to stoop so low as to pull a Ralph Klein and get off scot-free just because of the imprimatur of his name is just disgusting.

People have been kicked out of school for less than what Dershowitz did. People in chemistry labs have been severely reprimanded for falsifying experimental data and/or falsely claiming that their reaction products were produced in the reaction, when they had simply inserted product they got from somewhere else.

Hell, a guy in physics had his freakin' doctorate yanked because of a consistent pattern of falsifications of data that goes back to his thesis.

This is serious shit. :-


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 April 2005 08:27 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone read any of Dershowitz's fiction? I've read a couple of his legal thrillers, and they were actually pretty good! I just happened upon them in a used bookstore and had no idea he even wrote fiction, so I picked them up for my mother for Christmas a couple of years ago (we're always on the lookout for a good new pulp fiction writer, especially legal or investigation thrillers) and then I promptly read the books myself during the Christmas vacation I spent there.

This thread is strangely timely for me - last week I ordered several Dershowitz books from the library (before this thread was started), and picked them up a few days ago - "Sexual McCarthyism", "Chutzpah", and "The Abuse Excuse". I wanted to get a feel for his point of view, so I figured those three would be a good sample.

I have a feeling just from reading the cover of "The Abuse Excuse" that I'm going to hate that one. Sounds pretty right-wing to me, but I'll give it a chance. I'm not sure what to expect from "Chutzpah", which is supposed to be his experiences in America as a Jew, although it says he does talk about Zionism. I think his point of view in "Sexual McCarthyism" is probably pretty predictable just by the title, but it will likely be worth a read too.

Regarding his defence of torture in the past few years - I think that's pretty sad to see a civil rights lawyer come to that. It's strange how 9-11 has affected some people.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 23 April 2005 08:49 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
9/11 is a touchstone that should affect everyone. Terrorism is now part of our lives, its that simple. We can either choose to ignore it or deal with it.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 April 2005 09:30 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
By torturing people? Thanks anyhow, I'll pass.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 April 2005 09:34 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any kind of celebrity in America is deeply corrupting, and it takes an extremely strong individual to live through that with her/his principles intact. It can be done -- witness Susan Sontag, eg. But Alan Dershowitz has failed the test, and is now about as interesting as Britney whazzername.

Honestly. People have to start to stand up to the U.S. media machine. Dershowitz is now one of those people who is famous for being famous. It's a real shame, because he betrayed a whole lot more than Britney whazzername did for the sake of making a name, but that is his story now.

How delicious that a fame-hound like Dershowitz should dare to accuse a human-rights group of keeping its name because it was seeking publicity.

Och. Not even a little honesty among thieves, eh, Alan? What a shameful man.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 April 2005 09:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was just reading the introduction of "The Abuse Excuse", where Dershowitz decries all of the supposedly silly excuses people use to evade responsibility for, and even to justify killing and assaulting people - abused child syndrome, post-traumatic stress, etc.

And yet...how is that consistent with his view that we should be able to evade responsibility for, and to justify, torturing people because of the terrible trauma the US went through with 9-11? Isn't that just an abuse excuse on a large scale?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mush
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3934

posted 23 April 2005 09:52 AM      Profile for Mush     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yep- I guess only the powerless need "excuses" for behaviour. The powerful simply have reasons.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Mush ]


From: Mrs. Fabro's Tiny Town | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 23 April 2005 01:53 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
By torturing people? Thanks anyhow, I'll pass.
Why do you suggest that I approve of torture? I do not believe I have ever made such a statement. I deeply resent the implication.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 23 April 2005 02:11 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yep- I guess only the powerless need "excuses" for behaviour. The powerful simply have reasons.

And the powerful also have the ability to get others to do what they can so blithely recommend, because they can deny personal culpability later.

I have an idea; if Dershowitz wants to recommend torture, then let's have him carry it out himself.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 April 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
9/11 is a touchstone that should affect everyone. Terrorism is now part of our lives, its that simple. We can either choose to ignore it or deal with it.

Yeah, I was just mentioning to the wife the other day how you can't take the kids out for a walk these days without losing one or two of them to some terrorist attack.

Give me a fucking break ... the only affect terrorism has had on the vast, vast, vast, very vast majority of peoples lives is the stupid over-reaction to irrational fears by right wing bullies.

Idiots who can't tell the difference between reality and neo-con induced fear might affect my live, terrorism definitly doesn't.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 23 April 2005 04:27 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
No Yards thankfully you have never felt the horror personally of a terror attack.

Sadly the families of the Air India bombing, the families of Oklahoma city, the families of 9/11 can not say the same.

I dont live my life looking over my shoulder nor do I ignore that the world is dangerous and that terrorism is a threat in this modern age. You may go on blissfully ignoring the threat and I will pray that you never ever experience its tragedy.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: ohara ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 April 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes thank god for that. Now what is your point?

Because the reality is that there is more chance of you being run over by a bus than you being a victim of a militant bombing.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 April 2005 04:46 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Why do you suggest that I approve of torture? I do not believe I have ever made such a statement. I deeply resent the implication.

Oh, don't be thick. I wasn't implying any such thing. Here's how the conversation went. I'll type slowly so you can follow along:

I wrote:

quote:
Regarding [Dershowitz's] defence of torture in the past few years - I think that's pretty sad to see a civil rights lawyer come to that. It's strange how 9-11 has affected some people.

It's pretty clear that when I said, "It's strange how 9-11 has affected some people," I was talking about how it affected Dershowitz - namely, that he now supports torture.

Then you wrote this in response to my comment:

quote:
9/11 is a touchstone that should affect everyone. Terrorism is now part of our lives, its that simple. We can either choose to ignore it or deal with it.

Since you were responding to my comment which was specifically about Dershowitz's support of torture due to 9-11, I very reasonably thought that we were still talking about the same subject - Dershowitz's response to 9-11.

Which is why I answered,

quote:
By torturing people? Thanks anyhow, I'll pass.

Because that's what Dershowitz supports. That's how he "deals with" the fact that "terrorism is now part of our lives". And 9-11 is the "touchstone" as you put it, that affects Dershowitz when he says he supports torture.

Which is why I stated my opposition to it.

But that's okay, everything can be about you if you feel it's a good way to manufacture some hissy personal "resentment" to add to the conversation. Whatever.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 23 April 2005 04:51 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about December 26, 2004 for a touchstone? That touched a lot more people. Terrorist attacks have been happening all over the world for many years, it's just that the US didn't give a hoot until it got hit itself.

Edited upon rethinking what I wrote.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 April 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How about 9/11 1973, when Chileans learned to fear state terror, sponsored by the USA. Could we torture Henry Kissinger to find out more about what the presidnet knew, or perhaps in the hope of preventing other events of this kind from happening in the future?

Or how about 9/11 1982, when Ariel Sharon announced that there were "hundreds of terrrorist" in the Palestinian refugee camps aroun Beriut. Just days before he allowed the Christian Phalange to enter the camp and murder 1,500 odd Palestinians.

Can we torture him too?

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 23 April 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you certainly have more chance of being affected by being wrongly accused of being, or being associated with, a terrorist than being terrorist victim.

But for some reason I am supposed to be happy with having my rights restricted, innocent people thrown in jail, tortured, killed, so idiots can feel they are being protected from some imaginary threath.

As for 9/11, Air Indian, and Oklahoma ... I know that there are actions taken to protect us from the brown people we seem to associate with 9/11 and air India, but where are the laws and actions taken to protect us from the type of person associated with Oklahoma, namely white male right wing red necks?

Terrorism part of our lives? Apparently it's a big part of yours, so please do regale us with stories of all the terrorist attacks you have managed to survive. Poor me, I only have a couple of stories how irrational reaction to imaginary terrorist threaths have caused hardship to me, members of my family, friends and co-workers, but seeing as how it's more important that fear mongering cowards be made to feel safe against nearly non-existant enemies, I guess I'll just have to accept that seeing my 9 year old daughter held under armed guard is somehow protecting you from terrorism.

fucking selfish right wing cowards make me want to puke.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 23 April 2005 05:05 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, if I misconstrued your point Im sorry. I really am not thick just a bit new at discussion board lingo.

As for the terrorism issue, as I said i live my life realistically. I have travelled around the world stayed in many places some very dangerous, I just understand that naything can happen and we in the west have not really thought much about terorism.

Im not a cowboy on it but like that bus barreling down the street, I think we have to look both ways before crossing that's all.

[ 23 April 2005: Message edited by: ohara ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 April 2005 05:09 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Terrorist Threat

This is apparently a great BBC three-part series -- starts tomorrow night.

Me? I think that the main terrorist threat to me is the American neo-cons. Those creeps scare the hell out of me. They have positively unmanned me. Not that I was a man before, but you get my drift.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 April 2005 05:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for the terrorism issue, as I said i live my life realistically. I have travelled around the world stayed in many places some very dangerous, I just understand that naything can happen and we in the west have not really thought much about terorism.


On the contrary. We have put a lot of thought into terrorism, and apply great doses of here and there as a matter of policy. Ask the Vietnamese.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 April 2005 05:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Michelle, if I misconstrued your point Im sorry. I really am not thick just a bit new at discussion board lingo.

No problem. I probably shouldn't have been so harsh in my response either.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Macabee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5227

posted 24 April 2005 05:36 PM      Profile for Macabee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oHara, dont fret she was easy on you.
From: Vaughan | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 April 2005 05:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 08:55 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So as I mentioned above, I wasn't sure how I'd like Dershowitz's non-fiction, especially since he gets pretty bad reviews on babble from people I tend to agree with on certain issues.

Anyhow, after reading those three books I mentioned above (which I found excellent), I looked for another one by him that he'd referenced in one of those three, and I kept seeing intriguing titles, so I'd request one, then another, then another...so now I've read something like 8 books by him: the two fiction books, Chutzpah, The Abuse Excuse, Reasonable Doubts (about the OJ trial), Sexual McCarthyism, The Genesis of Justice, and I'm halfway through The Vanishing American Jew and partway through Shouting Fire. And I have another two waiting.

His books are really excellent. I didn't find myself disagreeing with him very much at all, although I haven't read the chapter on torture from Shouting Fire, which was written after 9-11 - I'm kind of dreading it, actually. (I'm keeping an open mind on that one since I find him so reasonable on other subjects.)

I felt when reading these books, especially Chutzpah where he talks about his life journey which has brought him to the point where he is today, that it was so neat to find so much common ground with someone with whom I figured I would strongly disagree. And I found that he even gave me a lot to think about on the subject of Israel and why people are so devoted to it, although I still found myself saying, "Yabbut...!" at certain things he writes. (You know it's bad when you start talking to your books.) I guess what I'm saying is, it's given me new insight into the other point of view which I may have lost through the polarization (from both sides) here on babble.

So anyhow, that's all, really. I've been kind of afraid to post to this thread in case it becomes a flame war. But I am pleasantly surprised by how reasonable and compelling his writing is. That said, I'm really dreading the torture stuff. Sigh.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 09:24 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
Story about Dershowitz:

When "The Case for Israel" came out, I knew I would have to read it, but I was kind of dreading it, because I had got it into my head that he was a bright guy and a well-reguarded academic. I thought the book would drive me up the wall.

To my surprise, the book was a shambles; it was full of unsupported assertions, logical fallacies, and hasbara history so old it would embarass anyone who went to high school in Israel within the last 20 years.

To compensate, he played the old criticism-of-Israel-can-only-be-motivated-by-anti-Semitism card. Like, every other page he played it. It was almost sad. "When one of the best is accused of being one of the worst" the reason can only be racism, he said.

There's an intelligent way to argue Zionism; Herzog, Oz. This wasn't it. I was really amazed that for that nicely bound $30 hardback he didn't have more of an "A" game to bring to the table.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 13 June 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
Wasn't it an American president who said something along the lines of: those who value life more than freedom will soon have neither ...

What's curious about the modern conservatives is that they're so afraid of dying that they're willing to give up their civil liberties to avoid it - unlike what they expect of soldiers sent to fight in places like Iraq (and its curious that many of them avoided fighting in Vietnam back in their day). Dershowitz seems to be working along the same lines - better to risk torture and imprison innocents rather than to run the risk of death or injury back home. Sort of the reverse of the old fashioned American rugged individualism ... I'm not sure the founding fathers would have been impressed.

A more rugged outlook would say that even if there was a high risk of terrorism (which I don't think there is), it would not be worth giving up their liberties to stop it - and I suspect its the view previous generations of Americans and Canadians would have subscribed to.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 09:57 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by GJJ:
Wasn't it an American president who said something along the lines of: those who value life more than freedom will soon have neither ...

What's curious about the modern conservatives is that they're so afraid of dying that they're willing to give up their civil liberties to avoid it . . .


I think the danger, be it crime, or terror, is not so much the reason for their hunger for unrestricted government power as it is their excuse.

I remember the morning of September the 11th. I was watching commentary -- some talking heads show -- when one of them arguing for the suspension of civil liberties -- interjected smoothly "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." And I remember thinking; he didn't come up with that clever aphorism in the two hours since the first plane hit New York. He's been hugging it to his bosom for some years, waiting for the right moment to send it out into the world.

And so it that bad times bring hateful people -- fascists -- to the fore -- and the danger and uncertainity of the times are honey in their mealy mouths.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity . . ."


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2005 10:43 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I haven't had the nerve to order The Case For Israel from the library yet. It's probably good that I'm reading his other stuff first.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 13 June 2005 11:00 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
I had a philosophy professor when I was young and Socratic, and thought the the height of reason was to find holes in everyone else's arguments, and he used to ask as, when we were discussing some philosopher "What is his best story?"

By which he meant, doing one's best to give a person the benefit of the doubt, forgoing cheap shots and easy points in debate, what is the best case you could make for them? Even if it was better than the case they were making for themselves.

It's a good way of reading and starting with stuff you can relate to certainally makes it easier.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 June 2005 11:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, I haven't had the nerve to order The Case For Israel from the library yet. It's probably good that I'm reading his other stuff first.

I really had to force my way through The Siege.

The whole part about how Begin felt "personally betrayed" by Sharon for Sabra and Shatila nearly broke my heart. I had a different take on it than the Conor Cruise O'brian. I imagined something like:

"But Arik! How could you let everyone find out!"


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 13 June 2005 11:15 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I was disappointed that he proclaimed OJ's innocence. I lost a lot of respect for him.

[ 13 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 13 June 2005 11:53 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
rsfarrel, I think you give them more credit (at least for personal courage) than I do. My impression from traveling in the US since 9-11 is that the folks pushing for things like the Patriot Act are very afraid - you hear it in their voices when they speak. And there are still many conservatives who are strongly against giving up their liberties, and who strongly denounce the cowardice of those willing to do so ... invoking soldiers who died for freedom in WW2 and so on in the process. Sure, some of the right wing is willing to cynically use it, just as they did in the McCarthy decade, but most of the reaction is honest cowardice.

Its the same in Canada ... the folks I hear talking about reducing individual rights because of terrorism are almost always speaking the language of fear and safety; look at the reasons they give, listen to the tone of their voices.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
There you have to look at the complicated relationship between oppression and fear.

Slave-owners really thought slaves would rise up and murder the in their beds, which virtually never happened. They honestly feared it.

I think that, to give ourselves permission to oppress, we must learn to hate. When you are oppressing people you hate, you will inevitably come to fear them, which will deepen your hatred, inspire more repression, which in turn will deepen your fear. All these things reinforce each other, and before you know it, you've immigrated to Israel and moved to Hebron.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 14 June 2005 10:41 AM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
But in the case of southern slave owners, fear of dying to a slaves revolt was a very minor element. As well, most were very quick to enlist in the confederate army, and fought very bravely - even the unionists admitted that the confederate soldiers fought better for the most part, and were overwhelmed by numbers. The south had unforgivable racism, but its hard to accuse them of cowardice.

Flash forward 150 years, and you see fear being the driving force for many conservatives, both in the population at large and among their leaders, most of whom had refused to fight for their own cause when themselves young (almost all of them have their names in the chicken-hawk lists). Given a choice of freedom or safety, they're trampling over each other to choose safety - its a very different America. I kind of suspect there was a similar bifurcation point in Rome at some point before the empire started to unravel.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 10:44 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
I was disappointed that he proclaimed OJ's innocence. I lost a lot of respect for him.

Did you read his book on the subject?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 14 June 2005 11:34 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Did you read his book on the subject?


Just the first sentence. (sorry)


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 June 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Slave-owners really thought slaves would rise up and murder the in their beds, which virtually never happened. They honestly feared it.

There were several slave revolts and many others cut in the nick of time, with plans for much bloodshed revealed. Mostly they feared slave revolts combined with abolutionist help from the North, ala John Brown


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 03:17 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

There were several slave revolts and many others cut in the nick of time, with plans for much bloodshed revealed. Mostly they feared slave revolts combined with abolutionist help from the North, ala John Brown


You are correct. There were "several" slave revolts. But compared to a population of millions of slaves and a historical period of several hundred years, the number and scale of the revolts was very small, especially in contrast with the constant, pervasive fear the prospect inspired.

This is what I'm saying; Fear of the people you are oppressing is a critical part of the ideological underpinnings of oppression. I can't prove it, but it seems true to me. There always has to be a danger from the oppressed, no matter how powerless and docile they are in reality. Look at Birth of a Nation, when the demonic black guy chases the white girl off the edge of a cliff. Look at the Blood Libel. It's an irrational fear, even if what is feared (as in the slave revolts) is not entirely fictional but merely greatly exaggerated.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:30 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Did you read his book on the subject?


No. What is it called? Does he reveal anything more candid other than the PR?


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 03:35 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:
There you have to look at the complicated relationship between oppression and fear.

Slave-owners really thought slaves would rise up and murder the in their beds, which virtually never happened. They honestly feared it.

I think that, to give ourselves permission to oppress, we must learn to hate. When you are oppressing people you hate, you will inevitably come to fear them, which will deepen your hatred, inspire more repression, which in turn will deepen your fear. All these things reinforce each other, and before you know it, you've immigrated to Israel and moved to Hebron.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]



Speaking of Hatred RS...you just can't help yourself can you? You have to draw some (perverse) logical conclusion about Israel in almost all your posts. OK OK so the bad weather is a Zionist conspiracy. Santa Claus is a Zionist Imperialist ploy to enslave the world. I give up!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

There were several slave revolts and many others cut in the nick of time, with plans for much bloodshed revealed. Mostly they feared slave revolts combined with abolutionist help from the North, ala John Brown


Old John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But though he lost his life in struggling for the slave,
His truth is marching on.

He captured Harper's Ferry with his nineteen men so true;
He frightened old Virginia 'til she trembled through and through.
They hanged him for a traitor, themselves the traitor's crew,
His soul goes marching on.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 14 June 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
peech: it's starting to seem like your following rsfarrell and ooking for any chance to be a harassing jerk. It's annoying, could you lay off.
From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 03:41 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Peech, would it be possible for you to find a way to write an opposing opinion with a little less venom and a little more argument? I really don't feel like watching another pissing contest between you and rsfarrell.

As for the book about the OJ case, I learned a LOT of stuff from it that I didn't realize from watching the case through the media. Enough so that I was left with enough of a reasonable doubt that I would have acquitted too. I still think he probably did it, but I defy anyone to read Dershowitz's book and then tell me it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW, even Dershowitz says in the book that he's not going to try to convince the reader that OJ is innocent. He just explains why the acquittal was the right thing.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 03:57 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

As for the book about the OJ case, I learned a LOT of stuff from it that I didn't realize from watching the case through the media. Enough so that I was left with enough of a reasonable doubt that I would have acquitted too. I still think he probably did it, but I defy anyone to read Dershowitz's book and then tell me it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW, even Dershowitz says in the book that he's not going to try to convince the reader that OJ is innocent. He just explains why the acquittal was the right thing.


I had the same feeling about the case at the time; that he was guilty, but that violations of OJ's rights and police misconduct resulted in an ultimately correct decision for acquittal.

The next point is less inspiring. Does anyone think that OJ could have established police misconduct and secured an acquittal with a public defender by his side? Of course not. Where would Michael Jackson be if he had had to rely on a public defender? Probably in the prison infirmary by now.

So you have a situation where we all have certain rights in theory, but the vast majority of those charged with serious crimes cannot realize those rights. Some people look at these acquittals and ask how we can get these people convicted; I look at them and ask how we can insure for everyone the kind of high-quality legal representation that today makes "innocent until proven guilty" an entitlement of the rich.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Peech, would it be possible for you to find a way to write an opposing opinion with a little less venom and a little more argument? I really don't feel like watching another pissing contest between you and rsfarrell.

As for the book about the OJ case, I learned a LOT of stuff from it that I didn't realize from watching the case through the media. Enough so that I was left with enough of a reasonable doubt that I would have acquitted too. I still think he probably did it, but I defy anyone to read Dershowitz's book and then tell me it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

BTW, even Dershowitz says in the book that he's not going to try to convince the reader that OJ is innocent. He just explains why the acquittal was the right thing.


Thanks Michele I will read it. I watched the trial carefully and felt that although he was guilty the Prosecution put forward a weak case. Out of interest I met an LA prosecutor (socially) who was in the same office as the OJ prosecution team and he felt that (off the rerecord) they bungled he case and in particular by choosing to move the venue from Santa Monica to LA county and hence the jury make-up changed dramatically. A jury which was more prone to "nullification" than one from Santa Monica. (which btw is not a correct result, but a rejection of the application of law.) Interesting.

Regarding the "venom" it's just irritating to constantly see Israel brought into the equation in the most possible negative light even when not even on topic. (Slavery = Israel???) Also hard to resist given the abount of venom I have received. Nevertheless I'll try and ignore the jabs. I have your point...sorry. And thanks.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 04:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's interesting you should bring that up - Dershowitz does too. He also addresses the idea that somehow OJ's "dream team" posed an unequal balance between prosecution and defense, when he says that in fact, there is ALWAYS an unequal balance - always favouring the prosecution - and that even with the OJ trial, it was STILL unbalanced in favour of the prosecution. I can't remember the exact numbers he mentioned since I've returned the book to the library, but the number of prosecution lawyers and legal staff (not to mention the entire law enforcement establishment behind them) way outnumbered even OJ's legal "dream team".

And furthermore, it wasn't just a technicality that got OJ off. For me, the really serious "reasonable doubt" came in with the fact that Fuhrman, the police officer who was on tape not just saying "the n word" but also bragging about how he would plant evidence against any n----- he didn't like, especially ones who are with white women, was the guy who found the glove. And that another detective (forget the name), instead of booking the blood samples he found, carried them around for three hours while he was investigating the rest of the scene of the crime. A lot of the supposedly rock solid forensic evidence was also contaminated in other ways.

Shoddy evidence collection coupled with police officers who are openly racist and who brag about how they constantly commit perjury and how they would definitely alter evidence to get some n----- convicted - that's enough reasonable doubt for me.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's interesting you should bring that up - Dershowitz does too. He also addresses the idea that somehow OJ's "dream team" posed an unequal balance between prosecution and defense, when he says that in fact, there is ALWAYS an unequal balance - always favouring the prosecution - and that even with the OJ trial, it was STILL unbalanced in favour of the prosecution. I can't remember the exact numbers he mentioned since I've returned the book to the library, but the number of prosecution lawyers and legal staff (not to mention the entire law enforcement establishment behind them) way outnumbered even OJ's legal "dream team".

And furthermore, it wasn't just a technicality that got OJ off. For me, the really serious "reasonable doubt" came in with the fact that Fuhrman, the police officer who was on tape not just saying "the n word" but also bragging about how he would plant evidence against any n----- he didn't like, especially ones who are with white women, was the guy who found the glove. And that another detective (forget the name), instead of booking the blood samples he found, carried them around for three hours while he was investigating the rest of the scene of the crime. A lot of the supposedly rock solid forensic evidence was also contaminated in other ways.

Shoddy evidence collection coupled with police officers who are openly racist and who brag about how they constantly commit perjury and how they would definitely alter evidence to get some n----- convicted - that's enough reasonable doubt for me.


What you say is still not grounds for an acquittal as to what the prosection or police "might" have done. The result was a jury nullification. Plain and simple. The jury was revolted or repulsed by what they perceived to be police misconduct and refused to apply the law.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Jury+nullification

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Where would Michael Jackson be if he had had to rely on a public defender? Probably in the prison infirmary by now.


Where he belongs. He's just lucky they had lousy witnesses. Today a juror revealed that he thought Jackson probably did it. So he IS a pedaphile. Just as OJ is a murderer. Don't forget a Civil court found OJ responsible for the deaths. on a harder standard of proof. DO you really think because the cops did a lousy job and are racists that OJ is NOT a murderer??


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 14 June 2005 04:26 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, thanks for the help on what jury nullification is.

But there is no real reason to believe that that is what happened in the Simpson trial. I mean, where a police officer may not be reliable, and comes up with the crucial evidence, why should we assume that the jury concluded that S. was guilty, but refused to say so for other reasons?

Perhaps you can point us to some statement by a juror that that is what happened. Otherwise, categorical statements are unwise, since they are not well founded.

Edited to add:

quote:
Today a juror revealed that he thought Jackson probably did it.

Yes, and "probably did it" is less than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". A juror who thinks that someone "probably did it" must acquit.

We don't want people to spend their lives in prison because someone decided they are "probably guilty".

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: jeff house ]


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 04:30 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's interesting you should bring that up - Dershowitz does too. He also addresses the idea that somehow OJ's "dream team" posed an unequal balance between prosecution and defense, when he says that in fact, there is ALWAYS an unequal balance - always favouring the prosecution - and that even with the OJ trial, it was STILL unbalanced in favour of the prosecution. I can't remember the exact numbers he mentioned since I've returned the book to the library, but the number of prosecution lawyers and legal staff (not to mention the entire law enforcement establishment behind them) way outnumbered even OJ's legal "dream team".

And furthermore, it wasn't just a technicality that got OJ off. For me, the really serious "reasonable doubt" came in with the fact that Fuhrman, the police officer who was on tape not just saying "the n word" but also bragging about how he would plant evidence against any n----- he didn't like, especially ones who are with white women, was the guy who found the glove. And that another detective (forget the name), instead of booking the blood samples he found, carried them around for three hours while he was investigating the rest of the scene of the crime. A lot of the supposedly rock solid forensic evidence was also contaminated in other ways.

Shoddy evidence collection coupled with police officers who are openly racist and who brag about how they constantly commit perjury and how they would definitely alter evidence to get some n----- convicted - that's enough reasonable doubt for me.


Well, ultimately I think we have to trust the people who sat on their butts through every piece of evidence in the trial; legal kibbutizing is a fairly sketchy prospect. They acquitted him and they must be reguarded as the experts. But I must say innocent people do not usually flee the police while holding a gun to their own heads and threatening suicide. I have trouble buying that.

On the subject of the imbalance, I have often thought that I would like to argue the following; both public defenders and prosecutors are officers of the court. Both work for the state. Why discriminate between them? Why seperate them by anything more than an office partition? Equal pay, equal research budget, equally selective hiring = something closer to equal justice.


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Paul Gross
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3576

posted 14 June 2005 04:31 PM      Profile for Paul Gross   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

Look at the Blood Libel. It's an irrational fear, even if what is feared (as in the slave revolts) is not entirely fictional but merely greatly exaggerated.

You may want to edit your post. It reads like you are saying blood libel is "is not entirely fictional" (Blood Libel is the claim that Jews kill non-Jewish children and make Passover bread from the blood. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel )


From: central Centretown in central Canada | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Don't forget a Civil court found OJ responsible for the deaths. on a harder standard of proof.


The standard of proof is a civil court is easier, not harder (a "preponderance of the evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt.")


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 04:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
What you say is still not grounds for an acquittal as to what the prosection or police "might" have done.

Actually, it most definitely IS grounds for an acquittal. If there is any reasonable doubt whatsoever, the jury HAS to acquit. The police officer collecting the evidence not only perjured himself on the stand in the OJ case, but was also caught on tape bragging about how he has altered evidence before and would do it again, and how he particularly likes to target and harass "niggers" with this kind of treatment, especially black men who are with white women. Furthermore, he and the other investigating officer had ample opportunity to plant the evidence due to the fact that they didn't book the blood evidence right away as they were supposed to, but walked around with it for several hours.

So, to recap - the officers who collected the evidence didn't follow procedure and had the blood in their possession for hours when they shouldn't have had it, all the while, having access to all the areas where blood was later found. The police officer who found the bloody glove, which didn't fit OJ, had bragged in the past about abusing his authority and planting evidence against black people. And he had the opportunity to do the same thing in this case.

That, my friend, is a reasonable doubt. What happened in the OJ trial wasn't jury nullification.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:34 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, thanks for the help on what jury nullification is.

But there is no real reason to believe that that is what happened in the Simpson trial. I mean, where a police officer may not be reliable, and comes up with the crucial evidence, why should we assume that the jury concluded that S. was guilty, but refused to say so for other reasons?

Perhaps you can point us to some statement by a juror that that is what happened. Otherwise, categorical statements are unwise, since they are not well founded.


The most "legal" analysts would disagree with you. A jury would never comment on nullification as it is technically illegal. Secondly the OJ case is now text book study in law school nullification. So you're welcome for the help!

http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/04/0412.html


http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/email/box090/msg09076.htm


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's pretty clear that rsfarrell was saying that it was the slave revolts that "weren't entirely fictional", not the blood libel.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GJJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9023

posted 14 June 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for GJJ        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Where he belongs. He's just lucky they had lousy witnesses. Today a juror revealed that he thought Jackson probably did it. So he IS a pedaphile. Just as OJ is a murderer. Don't forget a Civil court found OJ responsible for the deaths. on a harder standard of proof. DO you really think because the cops did a lousy job and are racists that OJ is NOT a murderer??


People are of course free to think what they want, and to express their opinions. Who knows, Jackson and OJ might well have done what they were charged with, but the courts found them non-guilty (which isn't necessarily the same thing as innocent) and so they're free. Putting them in jail based on public opinion (which in the case of OJ was split along racial lines) is not a good alternative.


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 14 June 2005 04:39 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To echo Jeff House's point:
quote:

"Jury nullification" means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. Since no O.J. jurors expressed or implied opposition to the laws against murder, their verdict was certainly not an example of nullification in that sense. Nor did any jurors admit that they were persuaded of O.J.'s guilt but that they thought it was OK for him to have committed the murders anyway. Instead, jurors simply said that they accepted the defense argument that police carelessness and possible misconduct, motivated by racism, introduced an element of reasonable doubt against the prosecution's case. Since Judge Ito allowed the defense to make that argument (judges typically do not allow defense lawyers to make pleas for nullification), it certainly doesn't look like a nullification case. The jury may have been more suspicious of the police than was reasonable, but that was the luck of the draw in the jury pool--a jury in Santa Monica later found O.J. liable for the murder, under the less rigorous standard of "preponderance of the evidence," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," in the civil case against him.

http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

That being said, there is no question that other things were at work in the jury room besides a determination of reasonable doubt. Fame, as we've seen again and again, Jackson, Robert Blake, etc., is the best get out of jail card. Whether that is because of the ability of the defendant to obtain superior counsel, or because of fame itself, that unquestionably aided Simpson. Poor prosecution strategy, to be charitable a mediocre judge, and the poor reputation of the LA police also contributed. But unquestionably, there were racial factors at work at well, in what was, based on the evidence, a pretty open and shut case.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:43 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Actually, it most definitely IS grounds for an acquittal. If there is any reasonable doubt whatsoever, the jury HAS to acquit. The police officer collecting the evidence not only perjured himself on the stand in the OJ case, but was also caught on tape bragging about how he has altered evidence before and would do it again, and how he particularly likes to target and harass "niggers" with this kind of treatment, especially black men who are with white women. Furthermore, he and the other investigating officer had ample opportunity to plant the evidence due to the fact that they didn't book the blood evidence right away as they were supposed to, but walked around with it for several hours.

So, to recap - the officers who collected the evidence didn't follow procedure and had the blood in their possession for hours when they shouldn't have had it, all the while, having access to all the areas where blood was later found. The police officer who found the bloody glove, which didn't fit OJ, had bragged in the past about abusing his authority and planting evidence against black people. And he had the opportunity to do the same thing in this case.

That, my friend, is a reasonable doubt. What happened in the OJ trial wasn't jury nullification.


Sorry Michelle I don't agree. The defence created a brilliant smoke screen but didn't establish a real defence. They posed "issues". "Possible" contamination of DNA (which btw is impossible,possible planting of evidence, and possible racism as a mtive for....? The jury Chose to ignore evidence: DNA of OJ's found at the scene, in his car (with no plausable explanation). Many people have been convicted with less. So as I said with great respect it's now accepted in most legal circles (schools, cases etc) that nullification occurred here as did the DA in LA believe. So politics aside that's what really happened.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Josh:

I agree with you. It's dificult to second guess. And racial factors, dislike (vallid) of the police investigation, fame, likeability etc. As I have said rarely will a jury admit to nullification.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Gross:

You may want to edit your post. It reads like you are saying blood libel is "is not entirely fictional" (Blood Libel is the claim that Jews kill non-Jewish children and make Passover bread from the blood. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel )


Look at the passage again:

There always has to be a danger from the oppressed, no matter how powerless and docile they are in reality. Look at Birth of a Nation, when the demonic black guy chases the white girl off the edge of a cliff. Look at the Blood Libel. It's an irrational fear, even if what is feared (as in the slave revolts) is not entirely fictional but merely greatly exaggerated.

"Blood Libel" is referred to as an example of creating fear of a "powerless and docile" group. "Merely greatly exaggerated" refers specifically to "the slave revolts" (as the "as in" clause makes clear; contrasting slave revolts with the other examples) which implies that the other examples are being referenced as examples of "entirely fictional" fears.

Besides analyzing it grammatically, you can also look at it rhetorically, and realize that in order to answer the person who replied that slave revolts were real, I had to give examples of fears which were entirely unreal such as the blood libel, and then to suggest that the same dynamic was at work in both cases. If all of those fears have a basis in reality, my argument would make no sense.

Much more of this, and I will give up writing dependant clauses altogether.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
RS & Paul Gross

In all fairness I (think) RS was usig the term blood libel in a differnt context. The problem is that "blood libel" has come to have a very strong historical (negative) meaning. Hence Paul's reaction


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 04:55 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to quibble with you a bit, josh, and say that fame is what guaranteed OJ a FAIR trial, not a get-out-of-jail-free card. And I disagree that it was an open and shut case, too. Well, I guess it would have been an open and shut case for a person who couldn't afford to hire their own investigative and legal team to uncover the corruption behind not only the investigation of HIS case, but the system in general.

In fact, I think it was based on the EVIDENCE that the jury acquitted. Because the evidence showed that the police contaminated the evidence, sent crooked cops to collect the evidence, which was done contrary to proper police procedure, and that's what the jury acquitted on. I agree with you that the poor prosecution strategy helped as well.

It was the facts of the case that won the case, though, not a jury blinded by fame, or one that was trying to make a race statement or whatever.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 04:56 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

The standard of proof is a civil court is easier, not harder (a "preponderance of the evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt.")



Wrong. In a civil case al a defendant needs to do is provide an explanation that could reasonably be true. (not reasoable doubt) If they do that and then the preverable balance tips back to neutral...the Plantiff loses. So in truth a defendant has a lessor burden in a civil case than a criminal one.

From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 14 June 2005 04:59 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sorry, Peech, but you no nothing about law, reasonable doubt, or the test in a civil or criminal trial.

So, wouldn't it be best if you stopped with the categorical statements?

Poster Farrel is right on all counts.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:01 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Michele:

I don't think Josh said fame guided the jury soley but it was A FACTOR. Secondly not to quibble to much with you but the evidence showed (and I watched this part of the trail carefully) that the cops "might" have contaminated the DNA evidence. Furthermore it's now well established that IF DNA evidence IS contaminated then NO DNA MATCh would be possible. Therefore they had a match on the DNA fingerprint of OJ (the killer) but chose to ignore that evidence because a racist cop "might" have planted it. ??
That=nullification. Secondly a more sophisticated court (the civil one) on a tougher standard accepted the same evidence to hold OJ civilly responsible for the killings.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:06 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Jeff:

I respectfully disagree with your opinion and "expertise".. But thanks for the "advice."
And BTW I didn't say OJ or MJ (hey it rhymes) should have have been convicted because because they probably were guilty.
I agreed that in each case the Prosecution put forward a lousy case. BUT it's generally accepted in the legal community that the OJ case was "likely" a nullification case. It's not a science. And BTW telling someone they no (sic)"nothing" is not debating.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 05:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
Sorry Michelle I don't agree. The defence created a brilliant smoke screen but didn't establish a real defence.

How do you figure? What is your definition of a "real defence"? It's not the defence's job to prove the accused innocent, it is their job to take the evidence that the prosecution presents against the accused and poke holes in it, creating a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proven the accused guilty. It is the prosecution's job to prove guilt, not the defense's job to prove innocence. They most certainly did mount a "real defence" - with the results of a forensic investigation that most people accused of crimes could only dream of being able to mount.

quote:
They posed "issues".

What are you talking about?

quote:
"Possible" contamination of DNA (which btw is impossible, possible planting of evidence, and possible racism as a mtive for....?

I don't even understand what you're talking about here. They countered the prosecution's DNA evidence by presenting possible scenarios where the police officers, who have bragged about planting evidence in the past, could have planted evidence in this case.

In fact, the defense even made the prosecution and their witnesses admit that the blood samples from the vehicle and the bloody socks was contaminated with some kind of chemical that would be found in the test tubes that evidence samples are collected in, but would not be found directly from the body that the blood came from. Therefore, the most damning blood evidence was contaminated, and it just so happened to have been found in places where the police officers were carrying around blood samples for several hours instead of booking them.

quote:
The jury Chose to ignore evidence: DNA of OJ's found at the scene, in his car (with no plausable explanation).

Actually, there was a very plausible explanation. The police officers were carrying around the blood samples for hours instead of booking them, and Fuhrman had access to OJ's car.

quote:
Many people have been convicted with less.

Yes. Because most people don't have access to the same investigative resources that the prosecution does. In fact, most people in the US don't even have access to a basically competent defence.

quote:
So as I said with great respect it's now accepted in most legal circles (schools, cases etc) that nullification occurred here as did the DA in LA believe. So politics aside that's what really happened.

Um, I very highly doubt that it's accepted in most legal circles that this is a case of jury nullification. The two lawyers who have contributed to this thread both disagree with that analysis, in fact. For good reason - that's not what really happened.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 05:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
BUT it's generally accepted in the legal community that the OJ case was "likely" a nullification case.

I would think that josh and jeff house would have a better idea of what is generally accepted in the legal community than you have. You know, since they're a part of it.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:23 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle:
1. the chemical in the blood sample was a preservative.
2. IF DNA was contaminated you would have ZERO MATCH! (how many times need I repeat that?)
3.) the defence did pose "possibilities" of planting of evidence motivated by racism. There was never an admission.
So that = a smoke screen. DNA match = DNA match. OJ had a cut and there was blood in his car.
He had motive and opportunity, was know as an insanely jealous violent and abusive man

This is pretty damning evidence. But I guess if two lawyers on this thread disagree....then it must not have been nullification.

BTW did you ever see interviews with the OJ jurors? I don't think they had the ability to comprehend scientific evidence.

Any way to quote a moderator I have great respect for..."I'm getting bored by this thread now..."


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

I would think that josh and jeff house would have a better idea of what is generally accepted in the legal community than you have. You know, since they're a part of it.


I guess I'll just forget about my 25 years as a trial lawyer then if you say so.


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 14 June 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you don't understand what reasonable doubt is, then chances are slim you could understand why one doesn't need an "admission" to create a reasonable doubt.

If the jury believed there was a reasonable chance that the police officer was unreliable, and willing to fix the evidence to inculpate someone he disliked, then it doesn't matter if he admits it or not.

They never admit it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 05:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think I said the DNA was contaminated, did I? I said the blood sample was contaminated, according to the defense, which managed to convince the jury of the same.

Of course no one ADMITTED to planting evidence! It's not the defence's job to force police officers to admit that. It's enough to show that there was opportunity and motive for them to do so, enough that a reasonable doubt is created. Reasonable doubt, as I understand it, doesn't mean proving ANOTHER theory. It just means showing that there is another plausible (and reasonable) explanation or theory about what happened that also corresponds with the evidence and with the innocence of the accused.

Or...what jeff house said better.

As for your 25 years as a trial lawyer - I'm sorry, but your legal expertise as shown on this thread really doesn't convince me, and heck, I'm not even a lawyer.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
If you don't understand what reasonable doubt is, then chances are slim you could understand why one doesn't need an "admission" to create a reasonable doubt.

If the jury believed there was a reasonable chance that the police officer was unreliable, and willing to fix the evidence to inculpate someone he disliked, then it doesn't matter if he admits it or not.

They never admit it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Jeff. What meant was (I'm sorry if I was confusing) it was an allegation of misconduct vs actual evidence = blood with a DNA match. That is all. Also for the record based upon the way the evidence of the Prosecution was presented (except for Bary Sheck on the DNA) they deserved to lose.
BTW I do pretty good on my acquittals for someone like me who doesn't understand reasonable doubt.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 05:40 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Michelle....(OK I'm getting really frustrated now) IF BLOOD is contaminated...then THERE WOULD NOT BE A DNA MATCH. It doesn't work that way. Either there is a match or not. (i.e if I spit in a blood sample and cross contaminate it...you would likely not get a match. You would get mud.
And the plausible explanation has to BE PLAUSIBLE not conjecture.

And BTW it's a court or jury (thankfully) that I have to convince.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
BleedingHeart
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3292

posted 14 June 2005 05:42 PM      Profile for BleedingHeart   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's my friend of a friend of a friend story on OJ.

A couple I met kayaking had met an LAPD detective on another trip who told them that they have found DNA from OJ's ex-wife in his shower drain.
Because the search was illegal they were unable to present the evidence.

Michael Moore in his book "Downsize This" makes a compelling case for OJ's innocence.


From: Kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 05:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh my god, Peech. You're making me crazy too!

Okay. About the blood. I don't know why you keep talking about contamination of the DNA. I'm not talking about that. Here's what I remember from what I read:

The contaminant in the blood from the socks was, as you said earlier, a preservative. The prosecution and the defense agreed to have the blood from the socks tested. If the blood was planted on the socks, there would likely be the presence of the preservative from the containers they use to put blood samples in. If the blood was not planted, then the blood from the socks wouldn't have that preservative present. When they tested it, the preservative was present. That's all I meant when I talked about the contamination of the blood evidence. I have no idea what you're going on about when it comes to altered DNA and the like.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:

Wrong. In a civil case al a defendant needs to do is provide an explanation that could reasonably be true. (not reasoable doubt) If they do that and then the preverable balance tips back to neutral...the Plantiff loses. So in truth a defendant has a lessor burden in a civil case than a criminal one.

I don’t know where you get this stuff, Peech, but I hope you aren’t paying for it.

From the Delaware Law Office:

“There may or may not be a separate civil lawsuit which arises from the same set of circumstances as the criminal case.
A well known example of this would be the O.J. Simpson (criminal) murder trial and the subsequent (civil) wrongful death suit. The civil case was brought to the court by the family of the victim as the plaintiffs, and not by the government. That case also highlights for us that there are different standards applied to criminal cases as compared to civil cases.
Because there are different standards in criminal and civil cases, the results can be different, as we saw in the Simpson case.
We call these standards the "Burden of Proof." The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a much higher burden than the "preponderance" (more likely than not) burden in a civil case.
http://www.delawoffice.com/criminallaw.html

From http://www.forensicmed.co.uk/burden_of_proof.htm
STANDARD OF PROOF - CRIMINAL CASES

The criminal standard of proof on the prosecution is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, which means proof to a high degree of probability but not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Miller v Minister of Pensions).
The criminal standard of proof on a defendant is the same as the civil standard, i.e., proof on the balance of probabilities.

STANDARD OF PROOF - CIVIL CASES
The standard of proof on both parties is proof on the balance of probabilities, i.e., that an allegation is more probable than not.

REFERENCES:
Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372.
Woolmington v DPP (1953) AC 462.

And I saved your favorite for last:

Beyond a reasonable doubt
This is the standard required in most criminal cases. This means that the proposition must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person (usually this means the mind of the judge or jury). There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would be "unreasonable" to assume the falsity of the proposition. The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country.
The difference between the criminal and civil standards of proof has raised some interesting cases, most notably of O.J. Simpson. Cleared by the criminal trial of murder, the civil trial later ordered substantial damages against him due to the lower standard of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Et tu, wikipedia, eh, Peech?


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh my god, Peech. You're making me crazy too!

Okay. About the blood. I don't know why you keep talking about contamination of the DNA. I'm not talking about that. Here's what I remember from what I read:

The contaminant in the blood from the socks was, as you said earlier, a preservative. The prosecution and the defense agreed to have the blood from the socks tested. If the blood was planted on the socks, there would likely be the presence of the preservative from the containers they use to put blood samples in. If the blood was not planted, then the blood from the socks wouldn't have that preservative present. When they tested it, the preservative was present. That's all I meant when I talked about the contamination of the blood evidence. I have no idea what you're going on about when it comes to altered DNA and the like.


OK sorry for the confusion.I don't recall that the test came back that way. So I'll be interested to read more on that. I recall it came back negative...hmm maybe age kicking in (mine).
But there was also blood in his car which matched (DNA wise). What I meant by contamination was that there was a lot of cross exam on the paralegals who collected the samples being sloppy and possibly contaminating the sample That's where the DNA stuff kicks in. I should read his book shouldn't I?
Which brings us full circle. How nice!


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
RS:


I said on a civil case all a Defendant has to do is show that the scales are even. i.e.Both sides could reasonably be true. That wins the case. In actual fact (or de facto since you like latin so much) it's practically easier for a defendant to simply meet the case with an explanation that could reasonably be true. For example in legal presumption cases (of negligence). Someone slips and falls in Safeway and breaks a leg. The floor was wet. So they allege negligence. There is a legal presumption that these facts speak for themselves and negligence is can even be presumed. It was wet and they fell probably because the floor was wet.The staff didn't clean it up. Case prove on balance of probabilities right? Wrong. All a defendant has to do is say "well we clean the floors regularly and she was old and had a history of falling". If both sides could reasonably be true the case defeated. So again it sounds like a tougher test on paper (Wik or Blacks law dictionary) but in reality it's an easier standard to defeat or certainly no harder than the criminal one is. In the practical application that is. In the OJ case interestingly his defence was obviously not believed at all. Now I have some "real" cases to work on. So Cheers.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rsfarrell
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7770

posted 14 June 2005 06:31 PM      Profile for rsfarrell        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Peech:
RS:


I said on a civil case all a Defendant has to do is show that the scales are even. That wins the case. In actual fact (or de facto since you like latin so much) it's practically easier for a defendant to simply meet the case with an explanation (in a civil case. For example in legal presumption cases (of negligence). Someone slips and falls in Safeway and breaks a leg. The floor was wet. So they allege negligence. It was wet and they fell probably because the floor was wet.The staff didn't clean it up. Case prove on balance of probabilities right? Wrong. All a defendant has to do is say "well we clean the floors regularly and she was old and had a history of falling". This is so if both sides could reasonably be true the case defeated. So again it sounds like a tougher test on paper (Wik or Blacks law dictionary) but in reality it's an easier standard to defeat or certainly no harder than the criminal one is. In the practical application that is. Now I have some real cases to work on. So Cheers.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: Peech ]


So you're a lawyer, huh? You're sticking to that? I thought you were kidding.

If every legal authority agrees (as they do) that the burden of proof is much easier in a civil rather than a criminal case, and if, in fact, they frequently cite the OJ trials as an example of this principle, but you, personally (based on your "legal experience") believe that it is easier to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" than it is to show "a preponderence of evidence" then I would have thought you would have made it clear that this was your own pet theory about the burden of proof, despite the conventional wisdom.

You didn't do that. So while it cannot be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you are changing your story, I'd say a "preponderance of evidence" indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


From: Portland, Oregon | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 14 June 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
<total off topic rant>

I really think that if you put Peech and RSFarrell in front of a stop sign and asked them what colour was the sign they would disagree over the shade of red used and the shade of white used for the lettering STOP.

It is amazing that 2 people can always find things to disagree with in each others posts no matter what the subject matter is or what is being said.

<Total Off Topic Rant Ending>


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 06:48 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by rsfarrell:

So you're a lawyer, huh? You're sticking to that? I thought you were kidding.

If every legal authority agrees (as they do) that the burden of proof is much easier in a civil rather than a criminal case, and if, in fact, they frequently cite the OJ trials as an example of this principle, but you, personally (based on your "legal experience") believe that it is easier to prove something "beyond a reasonable doubt" than it is to show "a preponderence of evidence" then I would have thought you would have made it clear that this was your own pet theory about the burden of proof, despite the conventional wisdom.

You didn't do that. So while it cannot be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you are changing your story, I'd say a "preponderance of evidence" indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[ 14 June 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]


You're true to form RS. If someone disagrees with you they are either stupid or a liar.
For the benefit of the rest of the humans on the thread read my posts. It's not the ACTUAL standard that is easier or tougher but the practical application of the test that makes it easier or no more difficult to DEFEND in a civil case. I didn't say or mean to say prove the case. Since the civil standard is more probable than not, all a defendant has to do is come up with a (bleieveable) explanation that it probably happened another way. (Not that it actually happened another way). Once that is done the case is over. But I would defer to your "expertise" in ACTUALLY trying cases rather than talking about them. Or to quote a friend of mine.."Are you talking or just talking?"


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Peech
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9272

posted 14 June 2005 06:50 PM      Profile for Peech   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
<[qb]total off topic rant>

I really think that if you put Peech and RSFarrell in front of a stop sign and asked them what colour was the sign they would disagree over the shade of red used and the shade of white used for the lettering STOP.

It is amazing that 2 people can always find things to disagree with in each others posts no matter what the subject matter is or what is being said.

<Total Off Topic Rant Ending>[/QB]


Miles:

Couldn't agree more. Just look at the threads and see where the root is....beleive I'm trying....... and trying....


From: Babbling Brook | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 June 2005 07:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, just look at the CLOSED thread, anyhow...because this is at 100 posts.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca