Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
District Attorney or Defense
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2742469" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>I am always for the defense, in the sense that I think everyone should have the opportunity to point out every weakness in the accusations against him and every fact casting doubt upon them. I don't believe that there can be much assurance that someone is actually guilty of what he is accused of if he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself in this way.</p><p></p><p>As far as the prosecution goes, if there is enough evidence that it appears that a person likely aggressed against another, I am "for" the prosecution in that I do believe that person should be prosecuted, to find out whether there are any reasonable doubts as to his guilt. I am never "for" the prosecution in the sense that I want them to win the case. If the finder of fact determines that there are reasonable doubts, I don't want the prosecution to win.</p><p></p><p>Of course I don't think anyone should ever be prosecuted for something that doesn't involve the initiation of force against another person, so I am completely against the prosecution in any situation where there is not an alleged victim. In any prosecution for a victimless crime, I always hope the defendant wins regardless of whether he is guilty, and support any actions taken to defend against or evade the prosecution, including physical resistance and escape.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2742469, member: 4235"] I am always for the defense, in the sense that I think everyone should have the opportunity to point out every weakness in the accusations against him and every fact casting doubt upon them. I don't believe that there can be much assurance that someone is actually guilty of what he is accused of if he doesn't have the opportunity to defend himself in this way. As far as the prosecution goes, if there is enough evidence that it appears that a person likely aggressed against another, I am "for" the prosecution in that I do believe that person should be prosecuted, to find out whether there are any reasonable doubts as to his guilt. I am never "for" the prosecution in the sense that I want them to win the case. If the finder of fact determines that there are reasonable doubts, I don't want the prosecution to win. Of course I don't think anyone should ever be prosecuted for something that doesn't involve the initiation of force against another person, so I am completely against the prosecution in any situation where there is not an alleged victim. In any prosecution for a victimless crime, I always hope the defendant wins regardless of whether he is guilty, and support any actions taken to defend against or evade the prosecution, including physical resistance and escape. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
District Attorney or Defense
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom