RE: those silly Italians judges!

RE: those silly Italians judges! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:31:42 AM)
quote: It is a strange world you live in where you can change the meaning of words to suit your own bias. Polanski pled guilty to carnal knowledge of minor not rape...so no mater how much you want it to be different it is not. Oh cripes not you again. Very well, one last time. There are legalities and then there are realisties. Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. Then he fucked her despite her repeated protests. That makes him a rapist. Now goodbye.

Loxosceles -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:32:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b I understand the argument - I'm just not accepting it. If we accept trial by absentia then we accept the principle that it is okay to try people without them being present. By this argument, you could never pardon people post mortem, because they can't be present - even if the DNA evidence shows that they are not guilty. Why is being on trial in absentia so abhorrent to you? Why is that a "violation" in every case? Surely there are some cases that trial in absentia is ok. Plus, you are using YOUR rules to judge other cultures and other countries. Let's do that in reverse - if another country says OUR rules don't count, does that invalidate our rules? No. If someone breaks Italian law, we should fork over the dummies and let them be tried by Italian courts. Don't leave our country if you don't want to abide by other countries rules. (unless you can depose their dictator...then it is ok).

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:35:43 AM)
quote: Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case? Yes it is, but we cannot allow the emotions of the accused to trump due process or the rights of the accused. If we did we wouldn't have a crinimal justice system - we'd have anarchy. What if the person the victim thinks is guilty isn't (a case of mistaken identity - which has happened more than once)?

Moonhead -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:42:07 AM)
Are you sure there isn't a hint of resentment at some mickey mouse Eurotrash court thinking that they're entitled to try Americans in your attitude?

kdsub -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:45:56 AM)
Italy broke the NATO Status of Forces agreement...the trial was illegal by this agreement. At least as far as the US is concerned I believe. Butch

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:46:36 AM)
quote: By this argument, you could never pardon people post mortem, because they can't be present - even if the DNA evidence shows that they are not guilty. Nonsense. A pardon isn't a trial. quote: Why is being on trial in absentia so abhorrent to you? Why is that a "violation" in every case? Surely there are some cases that trial in absentia is ok. How many times do I have to say this? If you accept the principle that trial in absentia is okay then you are accepting the principle that it is okay to try people without letting them participate in their own defense. quote: Plus, you are using YOUR rules to judge other cultures and other countries. Let's do that in reverse - if another country says OUR rules don't count, does that invalidate our rules? No. If someone breaks Italian law, we should fork over the dummies and let them be tried by Italian courts. Don't leave our country if you don't want to abide by other countries rules. (unless you can depose their dictator...then it is ok). I've already covered this (post 71). I am judging other cultures and countries - that is my right. I am not invalidating their rules. I am expressing my opinion that their rules suck. That too is my right. If other people don't like... oh well.

Moonhead -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:52:04 AM)
They weren't prevented from participating in their defence by the court, though.

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:53:20 AM)
quote: Are you sure there isn't a hint of resentment at some mickey mouse Eurotrash court thinking that they're entitled to try Americans in your attitude? Yup. I don't think Ira Einhorn should have been tried in absentia either, even though he is a low-life piece of shit, scum sucking asshole. In fact, the very fact that I (and a great many others) think he is a low-life, piece of shit, scum sucking asshole is exactly the reason why we must protect his rights. After all, someday society may come to regard you as a low-life, piece of shit, scum sucking asshole. What if they are wrong? Will you excuse them from violating your rights just because of their emotion?

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:56:33 AM)
quote: Italy broke the NATO Status of Forces agreement...the trial was illegal by this agreement. At least as far as the US is concerned I believe. Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm not really interested in that very much. What does interest me is how many people are willing to make an exception to people's rights based upon their notion that they are bad people - and the fact that they fail to recognize what a dangerous posistion that is (we are all bad people to somebody).

Marc2b -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 8:57:50 AM)
quote: They weren't prevented from participating in their defence by the court, though. I've already addressed this more than once in this thread. I'am too dizzy to keep spinning in circles. It's time for me to go get my beard trimmed.

slvemike4u -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 9:02:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case? Yes it is, but we cannot allow the emotions of the accused to trump due process or the rights of the accused. If we did we wouldn't have a crinimal justice system - we'd have anarchy. What if the person the victim thinks is guilty isn't (a case of mistaken identity - which has happened more than once)? I'm quite sure you meant to say...we cannot allow the emotions of the victim to trump due process....not the accused.But no matter. Let me ask you this what if it is not simply a matter of emotion....but rather a stepping stone to pursuing civil judgements? In an earlier post you chastised another poster for pointing out Polanski wasn't found guilty of rape......so here you are trumpeting legalities on the one hand ...while on the other you toss them aside to replace them with your own judgements......very curious,not to mention fucking convienent. In this case the accused had every opportunity to face their accuser...had every opportunity to see the evidence arrayed against them...and chose not to. There is no issue of injustice here....except yours of course for slandering Polanski with a charge he has not been convicted of......due process and all that.

Moonhead -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 9:42:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: They weren't prevented from participating in their defence by the court, though. I've already addressed this more than once in this thread. I'am too dizzy to keep spinning in circles. It's time for me to go get my beard trimmed. Fair enough, but the point is that they weren't denied the right to a trial, they just chose (or as has been suggested, were more likely told) not to exercise it. Given that this is the case, how are their, or anybody else's, legal rights being harmed by this? It's hardly Guantanomo bay, is it?

HunterS -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 9:46:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: It is a strange world you live in where you can change the meaning of words to suit your own bias. Polanski pled guilty to carnal knowledge of minor not rape...so no mater how much you want it to be different it is not. quote: Oh cripes not you again. Very well, one last time. There are legalities and then there are realisties. Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. Then he fucked her despite her repeated protests. That makes him a rapist. Now goodbye. I hve no clue what "relisties" are...do you? It has been "alleged" that Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. It is alleged that he fucked her despite her repeted protests...he has never been convicted of the crimes you ascribe to him. Have you tried him in absentia? Now if the truth is too difficult for you to discuss rationally there is always the block button .

Politesub53 -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 11:22:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you. Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect I have already spoken to this point. Please reference post 54 of thise thread. I recognize that other nations have their own laws - that is not the point. The point is: are those laws just? Do they protect or violate human rights? In Iran being homosexual can get you arested, thrown into prison, even exacuted. By your "reasoning," this is okay because, after all, it's their law. Bullshit. I recognize that I am utterly powerless to affect Italian law but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to call bullshit on it. quote: Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ? By catching him (within legal means) and dragging his scrawney ass into court. I'm not sure if Bin Laden is the best example for that, however, because he is more akin to a military commander who is violating accepted rules of war. Any attempt to capture him would be more akin to a military action than a police action - which means we can shoot the mother fucker on site. This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights.

slvemike4u -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 11:27:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: You miss the crucial point that they went to Italy, violated Italian Law, and were tried under Italian law. Trials in absentia are legal in Italy, so that produces two questions for you. Do you think anyone, American or otherwise, has the right to go abroad, break the law, and not be held accountable by the law of the land ? IE when in Rome ect ect I have already spoken to this point. Please reference post 54 of thise thread. I recognize that other nations have their own laws - that is not the point. The point is: are those laws just? Do they protect or violate human rights? In Iran being homosexual can get you arested, thrown into prison, even exacuted. By your "reasoning," this is okay because, after all, it's their law. Bullshit. I recognize that I am utterly powerless to affect Italian law but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to call bullshit on it. quote: Next, how would you try someone who doesnt wish to appear in court, such as Bin Laden ? By catching him (within legal means) and dragging his scrawney ass into court. I'm not sure if Bin Laden is the best example for that, however, because he is more akin to a military commander who is violating accepted rules of war. Any attempt to capture him would be more akin to a military action than a police action - which means we can shoot the mother fucker on site. This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights. Polite it seems he is a little "flexible" on this subject if his statements concerning Bin Laden and even Roman Polanski are held up against his stated stance against "abstentia". I' m starting to think this is an argument of convienence and or amusement....either way there is a hole the size of a mack truck in the stance he is representing...whether or not he recognises it.

vincentML -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 12:31:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: Justice is not solely a concern of the accused....it is important for the victim,in some cases a form of much needed closure.....how would your veiwpoint take into account the needs of the victim...specifically in this case? Yes it is, but we cannot allow the emotions of the accused to trump due process or the rights of the accused. If we did we wouldn't have a crinimal justice system - we'd have anarchy. What if the person the victim thinks is guilty isn't (a case of mistaken identity - which has happened more than once)? As I understand it, in a criminal case in the United States, the victim is not a party to the action. The victim and his estate may be party to a civil action for the same event. A criminal case involves only the State and the accused. To bring about a civil case a complainant must show proof of service of the Complaint. The respondent may choose not to appear but the trial may go on. In a Criminal Case the United States Supreme Court has held that the case may not proceed unless the defendent is present in person at the indictment. Marc is correct, it would seem, that due process guaranteed to the accused and extended by the 14th Ammendment to the US Constitution to the various States prohibits trial in abstentia. Unfortuantely, Marc, Italy is not one of the various States of the United States. You are attempting to extend a funamental principle of American law into another jurisdiction, as far as I can see, solely on your humanitarian concern for some notion of universal justice. Others in this thread have already pointed out that Italy and France, etc have a different legal code than the Common Law code of the UK and the US. That is already a given. I will not beat that dead horse. I have not found any justification in your posts, Marc, for making this transfer from US Constitutional Law to Italian Law except to say it isn't right. It seems that Italy had every right to proceed with the trial in abstentia under their own code of criminal rights as was pointed out over and over again. Unless you can show a legal rationale such as a treaty, I am afraid your argument is little more than a foot stomping tantrum. And that's too bad. I agree with the principle but not with the application in this case. They should not have been tried in abstentia as a Universal principle, but there is no recognition universally of that principle. So, tough luck.

Raiikun -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 1:15:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Makes me glad to not live in Italy...can they really find you guilty and sentence you without the right to face your accuser? And people are cheering this on? Wow. Irony of ironies. Here we have a poster moaning about the rights to a fair trial, for a bunch of guys guilty of kidnapping people off the street and sending them for torture. It would be laughable if it wasnt so pathetic. By your logic...fair trials aren't necessary for guys accused of sending people to their deaths through murder. It would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. Why hold fair trials for anyone at all? After all, THEY'RE CRIMINALS!

kdsub -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 1:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights. Your post brings up an interesting point Politesub...I believe, I may be wrong, but the US considers itself at war with Bin Laden and his organization. It would be a little hard to pursue a war when you must capture and prosecute each enemy soldier...No I believe Bin Laden will be killed on site just as other Leaders of his organization have been targeted and killed. This would be perfectly legal in world law. So trying to use him as an example in this reference is wrong. Butch

vincentML -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 3:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 This is bullshit, you are making your own claims of who does and doesnt get a right to the rights you claim to hold dear. Bin Laden is an indited criminal in the US, this entitles him to a trial. Yet here you are claiming he can be shot on sight, which goes against your own argument on peoples rights. Your post brings up an interesting point Politesub...I believe, I may be wrong, but the US considers itself at war with Bin Laden and his organization. It would be a little hard to pursue a war when you must capture and prosecute each enemy soldier...No I believe Bin Laden will be killed on site just as other Leaders of his organization have been targeted and killed. This would be perfectly legal in world law. So trying to use him as an example in this reference is wrong. Butch Questionably legal at best. The Geneva Convention recognises the rights of soldiers in uniformed Armies of Nations, not outlaw bands. That was G.W. Bush's argument for establishing the class of captive called "enemy combatants." Wasn't that the term used to justify torture and rendition? Help me out if i am wrong. Was Osama indicted in a US Court. I am not aware of that. info please. Thanks.

tazzygirl -> RE: those silly Italians judges! (11/7/2009 3:50:44 PM)
quote: I hve no clue what "relisties" are...do you? It has been "alleged" that Polanski gave drugs and alcohol to a teenage girl. It is alleged that he fucked her despite her repeted protests...he has never been convicted of the crimes you ascribe to him. Have you tried him in absentia? Now if the truth is too difficult for you to discuss rationally there is always the block button . He was never tried because he plead guilty. He admitted his guilt, then fled jurisdiction. There was no trial in absentia.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875