The Off Topic Topic

[Admiral Yi]

Incidentally, CNN's newest legal commentator is the smoothest talking black man I have ever heard.  You guys gotta check him out.  He's like a black William F. Buckley, only not snooty.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

[sbr]

Incidentally, CNN's newest legal commentator is the smoothest talking black man I have ever heard.  You guys gotta check him out.  He's like a black William F. Buckley, only not snooty.

Is he:  Well-spoken?

[Admiral Yi]

Is he:  Well-spoken?

His well spoken goes to 11.

[MadImmortalMan]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

[Admiral Yi]

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

The (retired) detective who made the case is being investigated for framing the dude.

[MadImmortalMan]

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

The (retired) detective who made the case is being investigated for framing the dude.

He should get that guy's pension too.

[Ideologue]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

See, under my plan, he'd have been executed 22 years ago and everybody would be better off, except for those involved in the wrongful conviction, who may face execution.

[alfred russel]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

Disagree. Assuming there wasn't some misconduct, a judge and prosecutor arent' responsible for ensuring no innocent people are convicted. The jury is kind of a key component in the equation. Otherwise, the burden of proof before putting anyone up for trial would be quite high.

Also, an inevitable consequence of our justice system is some innocent people will be convicted. That is unfortunate, but probably better than going to a 0 error system of incarceration.

[Savonarola]

Japanese travel tips for tourists visiting the US:

2. Beware Rough Areas Where the Clothes Demand Attention

In Japan, hip hop clothes are considered stylish. But in the United States, it is wise to avoid them, as you might be mistaken for a member of a street gang.

Can I be: Rear Srim Shady?

[Ideologue]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

Disagree. Assuming there wasn't some misconduct, a judge and prosecutor arent' responsible for ensuring no innocent people are convicted.

Wow, that is so wrong.  The quick version is that the judge in particular has a duty to see that the burden of proof has been met (edit: although it's more like defense counsel pretty much has a duty to automatically move for a JNOV, etc., and the judge has a duty to consider the motion).

[MadImmortalMan]

If you ruin peoples' lives for a living, there really should be some strong disincentives for fucking up. Personal ones.

[alfred russel]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

Disagree. Assuming there wasn't some misconduct, a judge and prosecutor arent' responsible for ensuring no innocent people are convicted.

Wow, that is so wrong.  The judge in particular has a duty to see that the burden of proof has been met.

The burden of proof isn't 0% chance of innocence.

[alfred russel]

If you ruin peoples' lives for a living, there really should be some strong disincentives for fucking up. Personal ones.

Then argue the legal standards should be changed. How many thousands of cases will a judge and prosecutor see in a year? If the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then it stands to reason something really crazy is going to happen in a case or two that gets an unattractive outcome.

[Ideologue]

Also, New York paid a dude wrongfully convicted of murder and held for 23 years $6.4 million.

For 23 years? Not enough. Assuming the prosecutor and/or judge will have no negative consequences.

Disagree. Assuming there wasn't some misconduct, a judge and prosecutor arent' responsible for ensuring no innocent people are convicted.

Wow, that is so wrong.  The judge in particular has a duty to see that the burden of proof has been met.

The burden of proof isn't 0% chance of innocence.

...Yes, I am aware of that.

I edited to elaborate a bit, but defense counsel is going to move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict regardless of the chances (been so long since I did criminal stuff that I forget if it's actually malpractice not to in some circumstances, but it's Goddamned close).  The judge definitely has a duty to consider a properly made motion, and thus make sure the burden of proof has been met on every element.  (They cannot render a JNOV in favor of the prosecution, although that is one of the limited set of circumstances under which the prosecution may appeal to a higher court a decision unfavorable to them.)