So When will Murtha Apologize?

[MobBoss]

I think that evidence does sway people.

Now wait a second. Thats a complete 180 from what you said here:

i honestly believe that the average person on a jury doesnt make a sole determination of guilt or innocence solely on evidence. Are you that naive?

but it isnt the only thing that sways people.

I think the direct evidence presented in a case is the most influential determining factor for a jury. I do agree that people can have individual bias, however, I think that those typical pale in comparison with hard evidence.

Most juries go by a combination of evidence, backround, culture, and more factors that are subtle. I may not be a legal professional but to think it is one or the other is either a flaw in your world outlook, or a staple of your debate style.

I never stated it was all one or the other. I was commenting on your statement which seemed to discount evidence to the contrary. Sure, there are plenty of things that influence jurys...however, the most prominent influence, in my opinion, is evidence.

 

[mrt144]

Now wait a second. Thats a complete 180 from what you said here:



I think the direct evidence presented in a case is the most influential determining factor for a jury. I do agree that people can have individual bias, however, I think that those typical pale in comparison with hard evidence.



I never stated it was all one or the other. I was commenting on your statement which seemed to discount evidence to the contrary. Sure, there are plenty of things that influence jurys...however, the most prominent influence, in my opinion, is evidence.

it's a 180 in your own mind because of the way you frame debates as one or the other questions.

Here is the definition of sole

Main Entry: 4sole
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, alone, from Anglo-French sul, soul, seul, from Latin solus
1 : not married -- used chiefly of women
2 archaic : having no companion : SOLITARY
3 a : having no sharer b : being the only one <she was her mother's sole support>
4 : functioning independently and without assistance or interference <let conscience be the sole judge>
5 : belonging exclusively or otherwise limited to one usually specified individual, unit, or group
- sole·ness /'sOl-n&s/ noun

look at 3,4,5

Evidence is not the sole basis for which the jury decides to convict or not. it is not something that functions independent of every other factor at trial. There are many factors, evidence, location, etc etc. The fact it is not the only factor at trial means it is not the sole factor at trial

Given that you refute this statement, you would be in effect saying it is the only factor, the sole factor that the jury bases their decision on. Did you just forget or misunderstand the definition of sole?

another example

E is in a set A,B,C,D,E
E is not the sole letter in the set A,B,C,D,E
It might be one of the most important but it is not the sole. sole does not have any reference to importance or scale. it simply means only, singular.

So the statement that "the only determination of guilt is not my by only evidence", does not conflict with, "evidence has sway".

I can't stress this enough but I dont believe the average juror takes evidence as the sole, the only thing they consider at trial, and in their determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. It might be the most important for many, but it is not at the exclusion of other factors, which is what sole would indicate.

do you understand now?

 

[mrt144]

No...I asked if they mattered to YOU.

you asked it in a rhetorical fashion to imply that it should matter.

 

[JollyRoger]

do you understand now?

The word "sole" was an important part of the direct evidence of your meaning. I'm sure it was given its proper weight and that no non-evidentiary factors were involved in reaching a conclusion to your meaning. As you are aware, most people give primary weight to direct evidence and don't let other factors significantly come into play.

 

[mrt144]

The word "sole" was an important part of the direct evidence of your meaning. I'm sure it was given its proper weight and that no non-evidentiary factors were involved in reaching a conclusion to your meaning. As you are aware, most people give primary weight to direct evidence and don't let other factors significantly come into play.

words are supposed to be fun like this.

that was the point i was making though. the average person doesnt look at just the evidence, but they might weigh it as the most important aspect of the case.

 

[JollyRoger]

I understand that; however, the purpose of jury pool selection is to remove as much bias as possible is it not?

The purpose from my perspective is to keep IN as much bias as possible in favor of my client.

 

[MobBoss]

The purpose from my perspective is to keep IN as much bias as possible in favor of my client.

Let me finish that for you: And remove negative bias by removing those not in favor of your client as well.

Just like its the prosecutions job to make sure you are not successful in adding jurors with possible bias to your client.

 

[Ecofarm]

A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.

Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines of "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Frank Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the incident, has sued Murtha for libel and invasion of privacy over his comments.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.

From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...ha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html

 

[mdwh]

So, we have estimates of 30k and 50k civilian casualties of war.

That's still way too much - his point still stands.

Saddam, during the late 80s Kurd purge, killed a more accurately estimated 150-250k. Gassed em in towns by the thousand. Sent a million or more refugees to other countries, and slaughtered thousands more in the swamp south and political dungeons. Saddam's sequestering of food aid for military stockpile is accredited with killing 400k children via malnutrition and starvation. If you want credible estimates of staggering deaths, you are going to have to look pre-invasion (see also: Iran-Iraq War).

What's your point? Yeah, and Hitler killed millions. These are acts that are widely regarded as evil. So you are putting the US Government into the same category, and saying it's okay for them to be evil, because other people are eviler? What's your point?

 

[Merkinball]

Thanks for the post Ecofarm.

 

[bhsup]

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and/or House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

"Acting in his capacity as a lawmaker" isn't the issue. It all depends on where he said it. It is covered by Article I, Section 6 of The Constitution.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

If they were just speaking to reporters on the steps of the Capital Building while Congress was not in session or at his home, then he has no protection under the Constitution beyond that of any other citizen.