The Political Thread - Hobbes Edition

[Elerond]

Hillary wasn't guilty by evidence shown as it's impossible to prove that she did it deliberately or with gross incompetence; and one of those is required for conviction. That the potentially criminal act- using a private server, receiving classified information on it and deleting documents that were required to be preserved- was done is however not in dispute, hence there is evidence just not enough to convict. Even Hillary doesn't dispute the basic facts of what happened in her case, she just maintains she doesn't understand technology thus is not criminally liable.

 

With Kavanaugh however every single thing is in dispute. There is literally no testable supporting evidence- specific times and locations; corroborating witnesses, physical evidence- the only evidence is that several accusations were made.

 

Trump can't just charge Hillary, that isn't how the system works for good and obvious reasons.

So in other words there was no evidence that crime was committed in first place

[Zoraptor]

Yes, there was, the facts were not in dispute only criminal culpability on the narrow basis of competence; there was not enough evidence due to the way the law was written as requiring deliberate malfeasance or gross incompetence.

 

It's not a binary where there's either no evidence or automatic conviction by evidential inundation, it's a scale. You can have evidence but not enough to secure a conviction. In the vast majority of not guilty cases brought to trial that is the exact situation, same where someone is charged but not eventually put on trial.

 

You're a smart guy, if you cannot grasp that most simple of concepts I may have to re-evaluate that opinion.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Zoraptor

[Raithe]

[Volourn]

What an idiot.

[Malcador]

What an idiot.

Exactly what a NAZI would say.

[Volourn]

The Nazi is the racist who is demanding minorities that don't vote are evil, lazy, scummy, racist, sexist and privledge.. That woman is the REAL Nazi. Why does she hate blacks, latinos, asians, and arabs who don't vote? Why is she stereotyping?

 

 

Unless you believe only 'privledged' white people don't bother to vote?

 

 

Like I said. IDIOT.

[Gfted1]

I kinda checked out when "your abilities" is clasified as a priviledge.

[Malcador]

I kinda checked out when "your abilities" is clasified as a priviledge.

 

Think it's meant in terms of lacking a legitimate disability rather than you just being good at something.  Or at least I take it that way from the rest of the sentence.    Don't really buy into the idea, even though rarely I'll see stuff people shocked that some people fear cops rather than like them

[213374U]

It's not a binary where there's either no evidence or automatic conviction by evidential inundation, it's a scale. You can have evidence but not enough to secure a conviction. In the vast majority of not guilty cases brought to trial that is the exact situation, same where someone is charged but not eventually put on trial.

 

Aren't like 96% or so of convictions the result of plea bargains in the US? It's not hard to imagine that Hillary ****ing Clinton is one of the the last people in the world you can intimidate with lawyer tactics, so she may not be as amenable to the notion of admitting guilt. Whereas for someone less (TRIGGER WARNING) privileged, the prospect of a long legal battle of uncertain outcome may be enough to agree to a deal with a reasonable, albeit not overwhelming, amount of evidence that may not necessarily guarantee a conviction in a jury trial.

[Guard Dog]

 

It's not a binary where there's either no evidence or automatic conviction by evidential inundation, it's a scale. You can have evidence but not enough to secure a conviction. In the vast majority of not guilty cases brought to trial that is the exact situation, same where someone is charged but not eventually put on trial.

 

Aren't like 96% or so of convictions the result of plea bargains in the US? It's not hard to imagine that Hillary ****ing Clinton is one of the the last people in the world you can intimidate with lawyer tactics, so she may not be as amenable to the notion of admitting guilt. Whereas for someone less (TRIGGER WARNING) privileged, the prospect of a long legal battle of uncertain outcome may be enough to agree to a deal with a reasonable, albeit not overwhelming, amount of evidence that may not necessarily guarantee a conviction in a jury trial.

 

It's not that many but it's a lot. But you have to realize by the time you get to trial in the US a criminal charge has already been reviewed by police, a grand jury, and likely more than one judge in motion hearings. By the time it gets to trial, IF it gets to trial, there is going to be a pretty substantial amount of evidence you did whatever you were accused of. With Clinton any hypothetical charge would have been one of negligence. It's probably the steepest mountain to climb since what is at issue to prove is what the defendant knew in their minds. There are a lot of moving parts in the State Dept and political campaigns. Like the FBI said concerning Clinton  there was evidence of wrongdoing but no charge that would survive a criminal trial process could be made out. 

 

On a tangent here but my biggest problem with the US justice system in not the conviction of the innocent. It does happen but I'd wager it is very rare. Rather it's that the punishment does not fit the offense. Violent offenses in some states are not punished harshly enough while some non violent offenses often face more prison time that violent offenders. 

[Guard Dog]

I wonder what the sign that woman was holding originally said? It (the text)  was obviously pasted in after. 

[Pidesco]

It's a bad photocopy, but I don't think it's photoshop.

[Elerond]

Text itself seem to be part of some wellness coach's facebook post about political activism or something like that

 

[Gfted1]

"The worlds not doing enough for me!!!!"

 

Exhausting.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

On a tangent here but my biggest problem with the US justice system in not the conviction of the innocent. It does happen but I'd wager it is very rare. 

 

 

This study estimates a wrongful conviction rate of 11.6%, which is not exactly what I would call very rare.

[ShadySands]

I thought most people plead out because it is usually faster and cheaper

[HoonDing]

pls vote out Tom Cruise

[Gfted1]

That stat only covers murder and sexual assault from 48 years ago in one lone state? Is this where we do fancy math to extrapolate that 99.999% of the entire world population has been sexually assaulted? 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

That stat only covers murder and sexual assault from 48 years ago in one lone state?

 

if you can think of a better methodology than "restrict our sample to cases where it is provable with DNA that the wrongful convictions actually happened" I'm all ears

[Gfted1]

 

On a tangent here but my biggest problem with the US justice system in not the conviction of the innocent. It does happen but I'd wager it is very rare. 

 

 

This study estimates a wrongful conviction rate of 11.6%, which is not exactly what I would call very rare.

 

 

 

 

That stat only covers murder and sexual assault from 48 years ago in one lone state?

 

if you can think of a better methodology than "restrict our sample to cases where it is provable with DNA that the wrongful convictions actually happened" I'm all ears

 

 

 

 

It just threw me for a loop. Somebody brings up "wrongful convictions" and you specifically narrow in on 50 year old murder and sexual assault from one location. I was expecting something else when I clicked your link along the lines of all crimes in all states but that's my bad. You do you.

[Guard Dog]

I was really referring to convictions as a whole. Actually on that point there have been a lot of exonerations particularly to convictions that happen before DNA evidence was really gay thing. Certainly a good thing. These days I imagined it would be very difficult to convict someone absent specific evidence like DNA. But as far as wrongful convictions as a percentage of all crimes that resulted in a guilty verdict by trial I think the rate would be very low. I have no scientific evidence to back it up and my iPhone really is not the tool to do a search like that. The one thing the American system of justice does do correctly as there a tremendous number of checks. The founding fathers wanted a system where it would be better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be convicted. That said I’m sure it still happens even in crimes where DNA is not an issue. White collar crime etc as an example.

 

But we digress from the subject chasing this rabbit.

[Guard Dog]

Regarding my previous post. I’m using the mobile version of the site and speech to text on my iPhone. Forgive any grammatical mistakes and just trying to figure out what I’m getting at. I’m not gonna edit it. Siri has a hard time with my accent I guess.

[Pidesco]

Hey guys, I just want to point out that Guard Dog clearly stated that DNA evidence was a gay thing. It no longer is, but it was. Gay thing.

 

Forgive, like GD says above, but never forget.

[Gfted1]

Lol I did notice that but figured it was a result of a speech to text snafu.

[Volourn]

That was surely a WTF moment. Good times. :D