Hunting Forum

Many Lawyers explain, define reasonable dought in differant ways. JIMO reasonable dought would be if it where later found for what ever reason the person was not guilty/ but innosent, all involved witness, jury, judge, prosicution, in the verdict and sentanceing, be put on trial, to determine the degree of their complicity. As far as what value they placed on witeness who may have had a high degree of interest, somthing to gain from the convection, and evidence, that may or may not have been ignored or unrightly used. And subject to the same punishment they handed out. JMHO there is your reasonable dought. So if the punishment was death, those involved, would be placed on trial for Murder, and could be sentenced to death themselves.
Would you bet "your' live on the testimony of one witness no matter how creditable they may seem to be. Kind of would take the old if he didn't do this, he may have done somthing in the past. Or I just didn't like the way he looked. A trial is for the crime charged at the time. Conviction should be based on only the evidence and testimony presented of that crime/charge and that crime only. Past criminal History, the way they look, attituded and such as that, could and in some cases should be used in sentanceing but sentanceing only. And only after a conviction based only on the reliable, tangible evidence presented.
You have a driver who has been drinking, who hits some sober driver, that sober driver is texting runs a stop sign. It is shown an average sober driver could not have stopped in time, before hitting the sober driver who ran the stop sign while texting. Many would still blame the driver who had been drinking, with little regard for the fact the other drive was texting and at falt.

I've never understood why a criminal's past record isn't open for discussion in a trial. It goes to the evidence of intent and past history. If a serial rapist is on trial for one rape, but has previous arrests and convictions for rape, then he is shown to be an incorrigible rapist, thus his conviction and punishment should be based on his history, not on the singular case for which he is standing trial! In the case of a capital crime, in most instances the defendant has a criminal history of escalating criminal activities. Not allowing those past actions to be brought up at trial is an injustice to the public which the criminal preys upon. In many of these cases that have been overturned, the predominant factor in their conviction is that they were already guilty of criminal acts, otherwise they would never have become suspects in the case that got them convicted. I'm not talking about simple assaults, or petty crimes here, but major criminal offences. So, if some career criminal happens to get the needle, so what??????

RT; "So, if some career criminal happens to get the needle, so what??????" You know I don't see a problem with that. But the fact remains it is to be a fair trial, based on the evidence of the crime. Sure their history would sugest they did it, but what if they didn't. That means some one else did, and they rermain free, based on another persons criminal history, and not just the evidence presented. The history should come into play, after they are convicted, based on the evidence of that crime, if they are a career criminal hang them.

I am all for career criminals being eliminated from society, however to remove them for something they did not do IMHO is wrong for a few reasons. The real criminal is now off free and will never be charged for the crime as well as the crimes the removed criminal did in the past may not have been solved and will never be afterwards. That may seem small, but if you were missing a loved 1, would you rather know the truth or go to your grave always wondering?
On a lesser note, are you not really pissed off when someone accuses you of doing something you have not done? Yeah you might have screwed up somewhere else, but do you really appreciate it if the old lady rips in to you for something you did not do and may not even have knowledge it was ever done in the 1st place.

"Career" criminals?! Come on guys. Is that really worth debateing? Last I remember, "career" meant you make your living at it. Is that like being a career IDIOT or stalker, or what have you? It just don't make sense in my book.

Posted By Shootin'J on 30 Dec 2012 12:59 PM
"Career" criminals?! Come on guys. Is that really worth debateing? Last I remember, "career" meant you make your living at it. Is that like being a career IDIOT or stalker, or what have you? It just don't make sense in my book.

Prehaps a bad choice of words, there are those who do make a living in crime. Habitual offender may fit better, some one who continues to do an act they know is wrong, or at least illegal by our laws, but continues to do it. Their actions may not  always cause harm, but have the potentual to do so. They repeat the same actions over and over again without causeing harm. But then it happens, they cause harm. They have been warned over and over again of the potentual. That should be taken into account. Thus the name career, or habitual offender. Some may steal cars, break into peoples houses, sell drugs what ever, but that is the way they support themselves. But they have been arrested for it many times, yet they continue. Career Criminal.
Then you have those who do other things, they know or it is believed wrong, they continue to do over and over again, no matter the number of warnings or arrest. Habitual Offender.

Career Criminals are habitual offenders who in fact do earn their living through their criminal enterprises, or even get their jollies from committing their crimes habitually. The term is one that has been and will continue to be used in the legal lexicon of cops, lawyers, and judges.

I don't know about other states ,but the criminal past can not be brought up at trial ,but the judge can use it in his sentencing I do know that we have the 3 strikes law and the judges do use it often to put people away as long as the law allows .

I just think that career criminal sounds like an awarded title to someone that has, as we all say, habitually commits crimes. I think psychologically and socially challenged criminal would be more accurate. That way it doesn't connotate an award or positive accoplishment on the criminals part. But then again, to each their own in choice of words.

SJ, my personal favorite name for them is azz  h o l e   punk Sum Beitches!!!!!!!!!

Thats being kind of nice there RT.

I guess someone is missing my point about yelling the death sentence. With the youtube full of police misconduct and bad judges I get a little uneasy about the death sentence being applied on a liberial base. I feel the death sentence is a just punishment in some cases. Do you remember COPS in Fl? If I remember some of those cops were convicted of planting evidence, stealing drugs and money,and shooting a man then planting a gun on him. For a treat go to youtube and type in search , police misconduct. police brutality, etc and you get the Idea. In the USA the police are the largest and best armed gang that there is. And if you can not trust the Police then we have serious problems. Try copblock , copwatch The question is why do we need filming of the police IF they are doing a good job? The worse part of the bad cop thing is that when caught they are protected or get admin leave WITH pay. This is what scares me about the death sentence.

add this to my lil rant https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Y1u1hqHifLY&feature=endscreen

First of all, Happy New Year to ya Yukon and to everyone else here. My opinion is that I favor both laws. Like RT, I've experienced a bad wreck along time ago. I wasn't wearing a seat belt but lived. My sister, back in '73, w{1}**** and killed by a drunk driver after she got about 4 steps off the school bus. No drunk driving laws back then. My brother w{1}**** by a drunk driver and ended up under the car in a ditch. He lived but now has tunnel vision in his right eye and terrible burn scars on both legs from the exhaust. Not long ago, a Logan county sheriffs deputy was in a high speed pursuit and lost control of his car. He got ejected and died even though he had a seat belt on! I've seen way to many terrible accidents. I drive for a living and I see this on a daily basis. Some wearing seat belts; some not. I've seen three deadly wrecks in one weeks time. A 4x4 four door pickup hit a SUV head on trying to pass a semi truck in a no passing zone in a S-curve. How stupid can you be!!! No survivors even though some wore seat belts. Just last year, I saw a whole family I knew get killed by a drunk driver who drove for almost 3 hrs before the wreck. Why wasn't he stopped before that? A three month old baby got thrown thru the windshield because the mother was to damn lazy to seat belt it in and in a hurry to get to where ever. She died instantly. The baby later died at Vanderbuilt hospital in TN. The drunk driver that hit them head on also died. You know, the law always steps up patrol on Holidays. Why not every damned day!? To many needless dying on today's roads because they're in a damned hurry to get home to watch what ever show it is they're missing, to go to the store or to where the hell ever! And that's just where they end up!

mowgle join the rest of us ranters. I see your point, If you noticed I put in, under reasonable doubt would you bet your life on the reliablity of one wittness, who may have something to gain by a conviction. We are all human subject to many things, greed, revenge, rage, grief, even cops, judges and juries. Our legal system is not perfect, never has been and never will be, but it is one of the best in the world. There was an old saying, better to let 10 guilty go than punish one inocent, it has never worked out very well, but more and more we want to punish any and every one , before they do harm in the name of safty. Each of us have some demon we like to exercise, and feel justifed in doing it in the name of safty. We are blind to our demon, while we rale againest ours, like the anti-gun people. And we are quick to attack those who may point our same demon out to us. I am not a big fan of the death sentance, for that reason. I see reasonable doubt a little differant than some, and if someone meets that reasonable doubt, Like I said I will buy the rope.

I believe some of you may have missed my point about people sentenced go die. Most of the people on death row have extensive criminal histories. If they had led squeeky clean lives, it's highly doubtful that they would have even been considered a suspect in the first place. Most of the sentences handed down by juries hinge on many pieces of evidence, and if a serial rapist has been proven to be an incorrigible rapist, he will most likely become a prime suspect if and when a rape occurs in an area where he is known to commit his criminal acts. Maybe he didn't actually commit the rape he was convicted of, but how many did he commit that he eluded prosecution for? All that is required to convict, is to convince a jury that the criminal is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the DA and the cops have presented their case and it's backed by the multitude of forensics that are necessary in today's judicial system, then most jury's will find him guilty. Let's also admit that in most of these types of cases, the cops don't have to create false evidence, based on the criminal's own actions. We also know that in most cases jury's don't fall for trumped up evidence; just look at OJ and the glove!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If the cops hadn't planted that little piece of evidence, I have no doubt that OJ would have been convicted on all of the other evidence.

Posted By rthomas4 on 31 Dec 2012 07:50 PM
SJ, my personal favorite name for them is azz  h o l e   punk Sum Beitches!!!!!!!!!

RT; I am s-o-o-o-o-o-o- with you on that! I laughed my keister off when I read it. Simply put, and to the point. PERIOD! Kudos to you.

Right back atcha, Grizz.....