Page 4 of 41
Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 15:39
by MadameButterfly
mh wrote:MadameButterfly wrote:Hom_Corleone wrote:
Scary sh1t man.
Ridiculous! Wrong country, wrong legal system, wrong book. Thanks God for Your people are totally f
ucking mad!
The real irony is that if this had happened in an Islamic country and with the Qur'an, there would have been uproar from the US. Not so different after all.
That's true but then again it would cause my exact same uproar. Instead of God I would have used Allah.
It still remains ridiculous.
Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 16:14
by markfiend
There was a case a while back where the jury in a trial here in England tried to use a ouija board to determine guilt or innocence.
Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 16:21
by EvilBastard
markfiend wrote:There was a case a while back where the jury in a trial here in England tried to use a ouija board to determine guilt or innocence.
Yes, but consider the judge in the case...
Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 16:25
by MadameButterfly
markfiend wrote:There was a case a while back where the jury in a trial here in England tried to use a ouija board to determine guilt or innocence.
That goes under my "wrong legal system". I don't believe in a jury.
Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 16:41
by EvilBastard
MadameButterfly wrote:That goes under my "wrong legal system". I don't believe in a jury.
Which introduces an interesting side-bar: under the jury system one's innocence or guilt is supposed to be determined by a "jury of your peers", i.e. "people like you". Presumably people like you would never find you guilty of a crime - if you believed that there was a case to answer then you would have pleaded guilty and foregone the formality of a trial - so it fails right out of the gate. Add to that the fact that jurors will bring their own prejudices to bear (no matter how hard they might try not to), and you end up with a system only slightly more sophisticated than a group of villagers yelling "She's a witch!"
The French system, where major cases are decided by both a jury and a panel of judges, appears to offer a slightly better system - at least you've got someone who knows the law and can balance the prejudices of the jury members deciding the case.
Although I have still reckon that there's no better system than Ordeal by Fire/Water/Combat.
Posted: 16 Oct 2009, 17:28
by MadameButterfly
EvilBastard wrote:MadameButterfly wrote:That goes under my "wrong legal system". I don't believe in a jury.
Which introduces an interesting side-bar: under the jury system one's innocence or guilt is supposed to be determined by a "jury of your peers", i.e. "people like you". Presumably people like you would never find you guilty of a crime - if you believed that there was a case to answer then you would have pleaded guilty and foregone the formality of a trial - so it fails right out of the gate. Add to that the fact that jurors will bring their own prejudices to bear (no matter how hard they might try not to), and you end up with a system only slightly more sophisticated than a group of villagers yelling "She's a witch!"
This is true and the reason I don't believe in a jury. And these jurors can also be bought, or threatened or just be an evil individual or could be influenced in the wrong way. Not to mention if they have any insight into law or not.
EvilBastard wrote:The French system, where major cases are decided by both a jury and a panel of judges, appears to offer a slightly better system - at least you've got someone who knows the law and can balance the prejudices of the jury members deciding the case.
Still the jury again. The system here in the Netherlands is just a panel of judges and I hope that they definately do know the ins and outs of our legal system and it's up to this panel to decide what happens. We don't have the death penality either and even our sentences are quite minimal with regards to the rest of the world. What our judges believe in is a system when the guilty party gets to go to jail if found guilty but also they get to the chance of rehabilitation. Sometimes I don't agree with that depending on what the crime has been. But that's just me.
EvilBastard wrote:Although I have still reckon that there's no better system than Ordeal by Fire/Water/Combat.
Posted: 17 Oct 2009, 13:53
by markfiend
Kerry was on a jury a while ago. She said she was the only juror who took it at all seriously; no-one else took any notes, stuff like that.
Posted: 17 Oct 2009, 20:32
by MadameButterfly
markfiend wrote:Kerry was on a jury a while ago. She said she was the only juror who took it at all seriously; no-one else took any notes, stuff like that.
See what I mean? You & I both know to trust Kerry though!
Posted: 23 Oct 2009, 15:59
by Pista
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8321748.stm
The crew said they had been distracted by a "heated discussion" but officials will check if they had fallen asleep.
Posted: 26 Oct 2009, 14:04
by Silver_Owl
Posted: 26 Oct 2009, 16:03
by James Blast
Thankee!
wasn't Richard Norris the other half of The Grid?
Posted: 26 Oct 2009, 16:06
by Silver_Owl
James Blast wrote:
wasn't Richard Norris the other half of The Grid?
Yes.
Posted: 30 Oct 2009, 22:44
by James Blast
Posted: 15 Nov 2009, 17:26
by Pista
M.P.s say something sensible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8357921.stm
Ban the "reply to all" button.
Posted: 15 Nov 2009, 18:11
by radiojamaica
Cool!
I dig those Amorphous Androgynous compilations very much and the Beyong the Wizards Sleeve edits are mostly great too... Gotta love that hippie scum
Posted: 15 Nov 2009, 18:20
by mh
Posted: 17 Nov 2009, 17:44
by darkparticle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... urns-.html
I was only watching an old vid of doa the other day
edit: may be not newsworthy news though
Posted: 20 Nov 2009, 10:21
by MadameButterfly
Aye!! Very exciting stuff. Wish I could get a job at NASA!
Posted: 20 Nov 2009, 11:31
by timsinister
Greg is MP for, amongst others, Leeds Six. Must be something in the water!
Posted: 20 Nov 2009, 11:57
by Norman Hunter
Posted: 20 Nov 2009, 17:58
by markfiend
It has emerged that Texas may have inadvertently banned all marriage (in Texas) in its attempt to ban gay marriage.
The anti-gay-marriage amendment to the state constitution includes this clause:
This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
Erm... surely this includes marriage itself?
Source
Posted: 23 Nov 2009, 13:57
by Silver_Owl
Posted: 23 Nov 2009, 14:22
by DerekR
Yeah, thank fu
ck I didn't bother trying to get tickets
Posted: 23 Nov 2009, 14:25
by Silver_Owl
Posted: 24 Nov 2009, 14:40
by markfiend
Man jailed for refusal to decrypt computer data.
So that's guilty until proved innocent then? FFS.
