A state that kills children

[Adam]

Teen 'sniper' could face death
From correspondents in Virginia
January 16, 2003

A US judge has ruled that 17-year-old sniper suspect John Lee Malvo can be tried as an adult, making him eligible for the death penalty.

More... (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5846604%255E401,00.html)

[static76]

Fry him!

[Asguard]

and that just proves that life doesnt matter in which case SO WHAT if he murders the lot of you?:mad:

[Xev]

A 17 year old is hardly a "child". When I was 17, I was working and paying rent, as well as forming decent political opinions. I was certainly capable of murder.

Fry him to a crisp.

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Xev
A 17 year old is hardly a "child". When I was 17, I was working and paying rent, as well as forming decent political opinions. I was certainly capable of murder.

Fry him to a crisp.

I can only hope to someday be this succinct.

[Adam]

Since this is about the USA's legal system, we need to take into account one very important thin: The USA legal system, I believe, considers thse under 18 to be "children". That is what they will try to get the death penalty for.

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Adam
Since this is about the USA's legal system, we need to take into account one very important thin: The USA legal system, I believe, considers thse under 18 to be "children". That is what they will try to get the death penalty for.

I think the USA legal system evaluates each case as to the status of the individual on trial. I'm sure each state and/or locality or whatever has its own rules by which to do so.

[Xev]

Yes, the US legal system is very fucked up. What's your point?

[Asguard]

yes it sends such a high portion of inocents to the chair that they got sick of it and stoped them all and here you are saying send children to the chair

i can only hope some day that its YOU

[Adam]

Originally posted by Xev
Yes, the US legal system is very fucked up. What's your point?

Hmm, reporting on a state trying to kill its own children...

No point at all Xev. Now run along and play...

[Nasor]

The line in blurry. It is possible for people under 18 to be tried as adults for certain crimes, like murder.

[static76]

Originally posted by Adam
Since this is about the USA's legal system, we need to take into account one very important thin: The USA legal system, I believe, considers thse under 18 to be "children". That is what they will try to get the death penalty for.
Actually, I believe the courts call offenders under 18 "Juveniles". A 17 year old is not a child, and it's ridiculous to treat him like one.

[Xev]

Asguard:
yes it sends such a high portion of inocents to the chair that they got sick of it and stoped them all and here you are saying send children to the chair

i can only hope some day that its YOU

I don't intend to commit a crime without being willing to face execution.


Adam:

Question is, do you think he's really a child? As I said, the American system is a bit fucked- we can vote before we can drink, etc.



Tell me, if a 17 year old killed someone you loved, would you feel that great about them being let off because of a simple one year?

I'm stating this badly, I think. But I'm trying to say that it's more an ethical issue than legal one. All systems are bendable, and the good ones are more flexible than most (for instance, they can balence extenuating circumstances). So what do you take issue with here?

edit personal atack

[static76]

Originally posted by Asguard
and that just proves that life doesnt matter in which case SO WHAT if he murders the lot of you?:mad:
What kind of retarded logic is this? This sniper kills innocent people going about their daily lives(including a child), and you expect anyone to value his life. Cry me a fucking river...:rolleyes:

[Adam]

Originally posted by static76
Actually, I believe the courts call offenders under 18 "Juveniles". A 17 year old is not a child, and it's ridiculous to treat him like one.

Can a 17 year old:
- vote?
- buy booze?
- buy cigarettes?
- be legally responsible for himself?
- be taken into the military?
- go to pubs?

I don't know these things about the USA, so please help me out here.

[wesmorris]

Can a 17 year old:
- vote?
no
- buy booze?
no
- buy cigarettes?
no
- be legally responsible for himself?
I think under special circumstances.
- be taken into the military?
I think under special circumstances.
- go to pubs?
not without parent.

[Xev]

Adam:

No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes but he can't drink.

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Xev
Tell me, if a 17 year old killed someone you loved, would you feel that great about them being let off because of a simple one year?Ok, I don't have a problem with trying 17 year olds who kill people as adults, but I hate arguments like this. You're deliberately attempting to set up a situation in which he might allow emotions to overwhelm his logic, then claiming that this makes his logic in some why faulty. It's sort of an inverted appeal to pity fallacy. People use it all the time, and it annoys me because it doesn't make any sense.

[static76]

Originally posted by Adam
Can a 17 year old:
- vote?
- buy booze?
- buy cigarettes?
- be legally responsible for himself?
- be taken into the military?
- go to pubs?

I don't know these things about the USA, so please help me out here.
- They can't vote
- They can't buy booze(then again, neither can anyone under 21).
- They can't buy cigs
- Of course they can be held responsible for himself/herself.
- I believe there is a special wafer that allows a person to enter the army at 17.
- Who cares about pubs...


Hope that helps. Oh, and when they snipe out innocent people they can get fried...

[Nasor]

By the way: it's pointless to quibble over whether or not a 17 year old is an adult based on what they can or cannot do. It's all arbitrary. We have arbitrarily decided that at 17 you can drive, but you can't vote. You can smoke, but you can’t gamble in a casino. You can have a credit card, but you can't buy a lottery ticket. We have also arbitrarily decided that at 17 you can be executed for murdering people. It's not as if there's some underlying system of logic that we use to mathematically determine how the law should work.

[Asguard]

you want to know my real answer

i HOPE im strong enough to stand on the steps and praise the judge for NOT lissioning to an emotional person (ie ME)

because THAT is what the justice system is about

IMPARTIALITY

and the victom and there familly are NOT impartial

[Xev]

Nasor:
Ok, I don't have a problem with trying 17 year olds who kill people as adults, but I hate arguments like this. You're deliberately attempting to set up a situation in which he might allow emotions to overwhelm his logic, then claiming that this makes his logic in some why faulty. It's sort of an inverted appeal to pity fallacy. People use it all the time, and it annoys me because it doesn't make any sense

Good point well made. But it wasn't an argument, more a question. I was trying to show why flexibility in the law is a good thing. I think I failed.

Anthony:

Actually, I asked Adam.

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Xev
I was trying to show why flexibility in the law is a good thing. I think I failed.I agree that flexibility is important. If we only wanted impartiality and strict adherence to exact rules, we would use computers as judges. Just look at some of the absurdity that US school's 'zero tolerance' pollicies have lead to if you want to see how important flexibility is.

If you're from another country and don't know what I'm talking about, I hope you never find out.

[Asguard]

impartiality doesnt mean stict adherance

it means that your not so blinded by the need for revenge that you never see the other side

[ozmonster]

It is a failure for a society to kill its citizens.

It is inconsistent and hypocritical for a society to kill its citizens in order to punish and/or deter its citizens from killing.

No matter what the age or the country.

oz

[A4Ever]

In Belgium there recently was a violent homejacking and one of the victims was under 18. He was brought before the same judge as the other gangsters and received an equaly high time in jail, because of the seriousness of the facts.

This seems a logical way to look at it. When you're under 18, you get the chance to be reeducated instead of going to jail. The difference is only in the focus of the guards. They have to try and make the delinquent a better person.

If your acts are too serious, you can argue that the reeducation has no effect and that the only way to pay society and to let you think about what you did is going to jail.

When the premise for reeducation falls away, it's not illogical to change the conclusion. Clinging to a strict age barrier is to rigid.

This does not mean that a judge will put a 14 year old in jail for sniping people. The accused must have the knowledge of the concepts 'right" and 'wrong'. A 14 year old would have to be reeducated.

I am against the death penalty, but only if accompanied by stricter politics about serving the full sentence. Since this thread is not about the death penalty, I will leave it at that remark.

[Xev]

"It is inconsistent and hypocritical for a society to kill its citizens in order to punish and/or deter its citizens from killing."

This is illogical. To claim this is to claim that there is no difference between David Berkowitz and David Hume.

For the record, I am against the death penalty.

[Asguard]

you ARE?????

i didnt know that xev

how come you surported star in the DP thread then?

and out of intrest WHY are you against it?

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by Xev
"It is inconsistent and hypocritical for a society to kill its citizens in order to punish and/or deter its citizens from killing."

This is illogical.

What is illogical about this statement, Xev. Please be specific.

To claim this is to claim that there is no difference between David Berkowitz and David Hume.

Maybe in some warped logical system. The above statement certainly does not follow from my assertion. Perhaps you can explain your thought process so the rest of us can follow along.

oz

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by Xev

For the record, I am against the death penalty.

Originally posted by Asquard

you ARE?????

how come you surported star in the DP thread then?


Isn't that illogical, Xev?

oz

[Xev]

ozmonster:

What is illogical about this statement, Xev. Please be specific.

You assume that there is no difference between a man who kills ten people and a man who kills none - i.e that they have equal worth.

Most systems of morality would differ, but moral systems are based on assumptions. Yours is too. Thus it is fairly illogical.

Isn't that illogical, Xev?

You have read this thread?
You are making assumptions again. See below for my stance.

Asguard:

I've made no secret of the fact that I am an abolitionist on a purely utilitarian level. I have no moral problem with the death penalty, I simply feel that it leaves too much up to chance (i.e that an innocent person might be executed) and is not worth the risk of executing an innocent person, nor the money spent on it.

[*stRgrL*]

The idiot killed what... like 15 people? WTF are we arguing about here?

[A4Ever]

The idiot killed what... like 15 people? WTF are we arguing about here?

Human rights, due process,...

you know, all the unconditional stuff you wish that wasn't there when something horrible happens.

Bring on the mob.

[Xev]

A4Ever:

What human right gives him the privlege to kill people and get away with it?

Can you even prove the existance of "human rights"?

Where does due process enter into this? Nobody's denying him a trial.

[A4Ever]

What human right gives him the privlege to kill people and get away with it?

None. That's not what I meant. He has certain rights like the right to a fair trial. When some animal comes around and slaughters people who can later show a passport or a birth certificate, is to be treated humanely.

The horror :)

Can you even prove the existance of "human rights"?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, december 10, 1948.

If you talk about the philosophy behind it: I would still say yes. Especially if you take the holocaust into consideration. This clearly showed the need for undeniable human rights.

Where does due process enter into this?

When newspapers print opinions about a case that is yet to be judged, this can be considered a breach of the due process, according to an English ruling. The court has to be fully independent when judging, and the independence can get compromised by public opinion.

Also, many people have the tendency to forget the right to a fair trial in times of attrocities.

[*stRgrL*]

Nobody's denying him a trial.

Right, they're just trying him as an adult making it possible for him to receive the death penalty. Again, WTF are we arguing about here? He meticously killed like 15 or so people. He plotted, planned and executed his desire to shoot AND kill people from a distance. Not only does he deserve to die, but he deserves to be shot in the same pussystyle manner that he used with his victims:mad:

[Empty Dragon]

The american justice system is based on a subjective opinon of the ruling minority. It lacks any sense of wisdom and understanding. (To my perception:I though the same of my government but they have started to incorparte restorative justice.)

As a Canadian I tend to view the American governement as selfish, egotistical, foolish and in-humain. Not to say ours is any better. I ussualy think the same about my own, but honestly who has the right to deal out death and punishment. Too kill again will resolve nothing. That better are they then those that they punish?
No body can prove the existance of human rights.

Xev honestly you of all people should realize this. In the big scheme of things they do not exist. The only reason for human rights is the love we have for other humans. Yes love may not exist as we we have had this debate a thousand times. But whether it simply be chemicals in the brain it takes nothing away form it. It is still love in all its pure essence. With all that it is.

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by Xev
ozmonster:

You assume that there is no difference between a man who kills ten people and a man who kills none - i.e that they have equal worth.



Actually this is your assumption based on my assertion. You assume that I assume there is no difference? I'n not that thick headed (althought intellegent minds can disagree). I can see the difference but the recognition of this difference does not necessitate state sponsored killing. LWOP is sufficient IMO.

I've made no secret of the fact that I am an abolitionist on a purely utilitarian level. I have no moral problem with the death penalty, I simply feel that it leaves too much up to chance (i.e that an innocent person might be executed) and is not worth the risk of executing an innocent person, nor the money spent on it.

Do you listen to yourself? Talk about illogical. You think not supporting the DP because of the danger of killing an innocent person is purely utilitarian. The greater good would actually allow for a few good ones to slip through the cracks in furtherance of order. You are making a moral judgement that it is better to let 10 men who should have been executed stay alive so that one innocent man won't be killed.

Your position also leaves open the possibility that the death penalty should not be abolished as long as we can insure that it is justly applied and cheap. Is this true? Well don't hold your breath. The finality of death does not leave room for any error and IMHO, it is impossible for it to be applied w/o error. This is where our positions are linked (no matter how you label your reasons).

oz

[Absurd]

Originally posted by static76
What kind of retarded logic is this? This sniper kills innocent people going about their daily lives(including a child), and you expect anyone to value his life. Cry me a fucking river...:rolleyes:

Well, maybe I am just a wet blanket unable to cope with the harsh realities of the world, but I happen to value all human life, including the lives of antisocial serial killers.

*puzzled as ever by the sheer stupidity of retributive justice*

[A4Ever]

Not only does he deserve to die, but he deserves to be shot in the same pussystyle manner that he used with his victims

I understand that.

But it also shows how far many people think human rights should go: not that far.

[Empty Dragon]

Who has the right to deal out death and punishment?

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by Xev
A4Ever:

What human right gives him the privlege to kill people and get away with it?



Tsk, Tsk. You call yourself an abolitionist. Please, we don't need your support. This is the tired old rhetoric we hear from proponents of the DP. Who's getting away with something, Xev? If we don't kill him we have to let him go free? Ever heard of ife w/o the possibility of parole?

oz

[*stRgrL*]

Too kill again will resolve nothing.

Neither will wasting money on letting him rot in jail for the next 50 years :rolleyes:

It actually WILL resolve something. It will eliminate the problem. Killer kills. Killer gets killed. No more killer. No more problem.

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
Neither will wasting money on letting him rot in jail for the next 50 years :rolleyes:

Actually, in the US it costs more to put someone to death then to keep them injail for the rest of their life.

oz

[*stRgrL*]

Ya, no shit Oz, I am a huge supported of the death penalty, I know the figures okay?

My point is, what difference does it make whether the person be executed right away or rot in jail for the next 50 years? What if any contribution can he make for our society? What the hell can he offer other then taking up space?

Oh, and Welcome to Sciforums! Post long and happy:)

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
It actually WILL resolve something. It will eliminate the problem. Killer kills. Killer gets killed. No more killer. No more problem.

This demonstrates to me a sever lack of understanding of the problem. Ask your self what happens before killer is made into a killer. There are forces that create and mold people to become killers. And in the US, these forces seem to be increasing. Killers are not born, they are made.

You can just kill them. But don't we, as a society, have an obligation to our children to try and prevent future killers from killing them. The only way to do this is to study the killer. To find out what forces created him. If we kill them, we will never know.

oz

[ozmonster]

ozOriginally posted by *stRgrL*
Ya, no shit Oz, I am a huge supported of the death penalty, I know the figures okay?



Well if you know the figures, then your assertion about money makes no sense, does it?

Thanks for the welcome.;)

oz

[goofyfish]

Originally posted by ozmonster
...study the killer. To find out what forces created him.
Now there's a new angle for you, *stRgrL*. :)

[*stRgrL*]

In a way I agree with what you say. About keeping them alive to study them. But in another way I feel no matter how much you study criminals, we will never know why they do what they do. The law should be that if you take a life with special circumstances, your life will be taken from you. If we stuck truly to that policy, I think people would think a little before pulling the trigger. But they dont, they go to jail and get stuck in the appeal process for years. Then they lift weights, do drugs and drink Pruno unti some shitty governor pardons them. Why should they be scared? Some people prefer prison to living on the streets ya know.

[Absurd]

If you knew all the figures, you wouldn't think that the death penalty is a deterrent, either.

[ozmonster]

strtgrl:

Thanks for being honest. I have great respect for that.

Now we get into the deterrent effect of the DP. The problem I see with deterring serial killers is this:

IMO, and I am in no way an expert, a serial killer is one step removed from suicide. In fact, I'm can speculate that many serial killers contemplate suicide. Then something happens. They start to think, "well if i'm going to die, I'm going to take a bunch of mother f*****s with me." DP doesn't do much to deter this mind set.

And then there is the thinking that, "well, I already killed one, might as well kill some more since I'm getting the DP."

I think that what we as a society do after the crime is merely picking up the pieces. The damage in many ways is already done. US criminal justice system is just like Western medicine: reactionary. Very few resources are put into prevention, i.e. actually preventing the harm before it occurs. The only way to prevent sociopathic killers id to get in their head. This likely will not happen while their young and hateful but may come around in their later years.

oz

[*stRgrL*]

Originally posted by Absurd
If you knew all the figures, you wouldn't think that the death penalty is a deterrent, either.

Its not? If your dead how can you kill?:D

EDIT: Im just kidding people

[*stRgrL*]

I agree with everything you just posted.

So what shall we argue about now?:D

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by *stRgrL*

So what shall we argue about now?:D

I hate it when that happens. Oh well we'll just have to agree to agree.;)

oz

[*stRgrL*]

Right;) And if you stick around longer you'll see how annoying I can really be:D

[ozmonster]

I don't plan on going anywhere. Besides, I love kick ass straight girls.:p

oz

[spookz]

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
In a way I agree with what you say. About keeping them alive to study them.

when is feeding time? i like to bring the kids along to watch

[ozmonster]

and star girls :D

oz

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by spookz
when is feeding time? i like to bring the kids along to watch

ROTFLMAO:p :p :p

oz

[Nasor]

I'm curious about why people feel that everyone (including criminals) have an unconditional right to life. Where does this right come from? Rights are arbitarily assigned and taken away by societies all the time, all throughout history.

[ozmonster]

Originally posted by Nasor
I'm curious about why people feel that everyone (including criminals) have an unconditional right to life. ... Rights are arbitarily assigned and taken away by societies all the time, all throughout history.

Does that make it right just because it happens all the time, all throughout history? I don't feel that people have an unconditional right to life. If you threaten my or my family's life with imminent violence, I will kill you where you stand (if possible). The only justified killing, IMO, is killing in self defense of yourself or others.

A government should not have any more of a right to kill then its citizens. My problem is with state sponsored killings.

oz

[Nasor]

Originally posted by ozmonster
Does that make it right just because it happens all the time, all throughout history I think you missed my point. A lot of people here were saying things like 'governments don't have the right to kill people' as if this were as natural and verifiable as the law of gravity. I was pointing out that rights are arbitrarily assigned, and always have been. Whether or not people have unconditional rights to life is up to society. In the United States people have the right to free speech and jury trials; in other countries people don't. That doesn't mean that people in other countries are having their rights violated, it just means that people over there have different rights.

[*stRgrL*]

Well said Nasor.

[Absurd]

Originally posted by Nasor
I think you missed my point. A lot of people here were saying things like 'governments don't have the right to kill people' as if this were as natural and verifiable as the law of gravity. I was pointing out that rights are arbitrarily assigned, and always have been. Whether or not people have unconditional rights to life is up to society. In the United States people have the right to free speech and jury trials; in other countries people don't. That doesn't mean that people in other countries are having their rights violated, it just means that people over there have different rights.

The simplest way to look at it is this: Saying that Y has a right to X is just the equivalent of saying that Y should be able to get X, and saying that Y has no right to Z is just the equivalent of saying that Y should not be able to get Z.

Normative statements of this sort may not be "natural and verifiable", because ultimately their truth is contingent on the values of human cultures and individuals, but that doesn't make them arbitrary - at least no more arbitrary than those values. When I say that "governments don't have the right to kill people" or something to that effect, I am expressing my belief that governments should not kill people. I admit that I can't prove this to you or anyone else, the way one might prove some scientific theory, but I can shoot for solidarity and intersubjective agreement. That's all you would ever need, anyway.

[static76]

Originally posted by Absurd
Well, maybe I am just a wet blanket unable to cope with the harsh realities of the world, but I happen to value all human life, including the lives of antisocial serial killers.

Well I guess this is where we differ. I don't value the lives of sadistic murders, they forfieted their right to live when they committed their crimes, IMO.

Should I value the lives of the 911 hijackers, what about a sadist killer like Charles Manson? The DP is reserved for America's worst criminals, it takes alot to even be eligible for it. I have no moral problem with it, the only thing that bothers me about the DP, is the current situation of our court system and its ability to get only guilty people on deathrow.

[spookz]

Originally posted by static76
is the current situation of our court system and its ability to get only innocent people on deathrow.

thats funny. the guilty walk and the innocent fry!



:D

[Adam]

States should not have the right to kill their citizens. Why?

If the state happens to go very right wing, it may use that mechanism to remove dissenters.
Part of a state's job is to maintain their society.
It turns the person who pushes the button into a coward who kills a bound and unarmed human. A state should not be able to make any of its citizens do that.


What should happen instead? The relatives of the victims should have the option of revenge, if a killer is found guilty.
If they elect to not take revenge, the killer spends the rest of his life on prison. Make any wrongful deaths entirely the fault of the citizens rather than the government.

[Asguard]

adam are u sugesting we bind a killer and give the victoms family a gun?

they are still cowards killing a bound person

[Adam]

Originally posted by Asguard
adam are u sugesting we bind a killer and give the victoms family a gun?

they are still cowards killing a bound person

The difference is that rather than the state forcing some poor prison guard to do that, we give people the choice to become such cowards.

[static76]

Originally posted by spookz
thats funny. the guilty walk and the innocent fry!



:D
:D Oooops, spelling mistake....:p

[Asguard]

well adam i think that would survearly cut the amount of peneltys carried out as i dont think anyone here would have the guts to look into someones eyes and pull the trigger

and if thats the way it was done it should be MANDITORY that they DONT cover there faces

anyone who wants to kill should be forced to look into there eyes

[static76]

Originally posted by Adam
States should not have the right to kill their citizens. Why?

If the state happens to go very right wing, it may use that mechanism to remove dissenters.
Part of a state's job is to maintain their society.
It turns the person who pushes the button into a coward who kills a bound and unarmed human. A state should not be able to make any of its citizens do that.


What should happen instead? The relatives of the victims should have the option of revenge, if a killer is found guilty.
If they elect to not take revenge, the killer spends the rest of his life on prison. Make any wrongful deaths entirely the fault of the citizens rather than the government.
Interesting points, but your forgetting that people put on deathrow, are done so by a jury of their peers, not the government. It's up to the twelve people in the jury box, to decide the person's fate(if he is even eligible for the DP).

Also, I believe the job of executing is voluntary, not forced.

[Adam]

Interesting points, but your forgetting that people put on deathrow, are done so by a jury of their peers, not the government. It's up to the twelve people in the jury box, to decide the person's fate(if he is even eligible for the DP).

I dislike the whole jury system. Why place your life in the hands of a bunch of mooks who are swayed by emotional arguments?


Also, I believe the job of executing is voluntary, not forced.

Didn't know that, thanks. Who would volunteer? Yuck.

[static76]

Originally posted by Adam
I dislike the whole jury system. Why place your life in the hands of a bunch of mooks who are swayed by emotional arguments?

What other system of justice would you prefer?

[Asguard]

bench trials i would assume

were things are judged on the LAW rather than on the emotions

[*stRgrL*]

Who would volunteer?

Depending on the criminal, I would.

A few I wouldn't mind:

Alejandro Avila (http://crime.about.com/library/blfiles/blsamantharunnion.htm)

David Westerfield (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/06/national/main517740.shtml)

Cary Stayner (http://classic.sacbee.com/news/special/yosemite/061401_pelosso.html)

And the ultimate satisfaction being

Luis Alfredo Garavito (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9910/30/colombia.murders.01/)

Ahhh.. then I could sleep better at night.

[Nasor]

Originally posted by Adam
I dislike the whole jury system. Why place your life in the hands of a bunch of mooks who are swayed by emotional arguments?It prevents the government from using the courts as a tool for oppression.

I also disagree with your claims that it is somehow cowardly for executioners to kill people who are helpless. There is a difference between cowardice and pragmatism. Cowardice is not doing something that needs to be done because of fear. If something need to be done, it only makes sense to do it in the safest way possible. Now of course I know that you don't believe executions to be necessary, but that's not the point.

[static76]

Originally posted by Asguard
bench trials i would assume

were things are judged on the LAW rather than on the emotions
A judge has emotions just like everyone else. Why not have 12 people to discuss and determine the verdict, instead of one.

[Asguard]

it is easier for someone trained to BE impartal to ACT impartial

this is something i understand because i have been an umpire for a long time and its very easy to favor one side because you like them or because the other team is playing dirty ect, its quite hard to act impartially and call what you see

how can the lowest comon denominatior (and unless what i have seen is wrong they dont like people who can think on jurys) act impartially?

all the prosiction has to do is show a few photos of the dead victom, give a bit of circumstatual evidance and say "he did it" and you will have the average person screaming for blood

[static76]

I guess we'll just have to disagree then. There are bad judges(Judge Ito), just like there are bad juries.

[Asguard]

yep there are

thats why apeals were invented