NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/65908

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65908 misc.legal:21909
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!gatech!concert!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!lkk
From: [e-mail] (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: George Bush pardons criminals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 21:32:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <bhayden.725731091@teal> <[e-mail]> <bhayden.725787292@teal>
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
Lines: 63

In <bhayden.725787292@teal> [e-mail] (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>>So the Court's determination that a verdict of "not guilty" should be
>>entered in Ollie North's case only means that there remains some legal
>>doubt (after certain inadmissible evidence was excluded from his
>>case).  It is not a finding that he is, literally, not guilty.

>That is no different than any other not guilty verdict.
>Yet we consistently say in cases where a jury was able to find
>a resonable doubt that the person was found innocent (or not guilty).

That's right.  So we don't send him to jail.  The government can't
punish him.  That doesn't prevent us, as individual American citizens,
from using our own judgment and finding him to be the lying scumbag
that he is.

>> The judicial determination of
>>>the guilt was essentially overturned. Yet you can sit there and
>>>say that he was guilty anyway.

>>That's right.  The overturning of a verdict has nothing necessarily to
>>do with its underlying truth value.

>But - "guilt", especially in this context carries all of the judicial
>gloss you just mentioned - constitutional rights, due process,
>beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. It also means finding the proper
>actus rea, and mens rea. .

No.  Guilt is a factual question: Did he commit the illegal acts he
was accused of?  Whether he may be found guilty under our system of
justice is a procedural question apart from the factuaal issue.

I will pose two hypotheticals which should demonstrate the point to
you.

1) Donald Trump holds up a bank in NYC in broad daylight.  There are
100 witnesses, and they are all willing to testify that they
recognized him holding up the bank.  There are no witnesses denying
this fact.  Donald Trump escapes with the money and flies on his
private Jet to Cuba, where is is given asylum.  From there he sends
letters to every American newspaper stating: "I robbed the bank, and
you can't get me, suckers!"  Because there is no extradition treaty
with Cuba, Trump cannot be tried in an American Court unless he
voluntarily returns to the U.S.  Consequently, no U.S. Court can issue
a verdict against him.  Query:  In this scenario, in your opinion, is
Trump guilty of bank robbery?

2) You are dying of a rare disease, mumbo-jumbo-itis.  The only cure for
mumbo-jumbo-itis is kryptonite, of which there are only minute
quantities in the world.  Mr. Evil, a mad scientist, has stolen all of
the nation's reserves of kryptonite, and has them hidden under a rock
in a secret location.  The police, in violation of Mr. Evil's
constitutional rights, raid his house and discover a note which gives
the location of the stash of Kryptonite.  Mr. Evil is prosecuted for
stealing the kryptonite, but the evidence against him is thrown out on
fourth amendment grounds.  Query:  WIll you go try to find that rock
where the Kryptonite is hidden, or do you think that because the note
was taken illegally that its not really true?

--
larry kolodney:([e-mail])
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner