NationStates Jolt Archive

Since he's effectively confessed, would you be in favor of procedural justice (let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals until we're done), or would you be in favor of substantive justice (he's fucking guilty, where's a rope?)?

http://newstalkradiowhio.com/localnews/2009/01/high-bond-set-no-plea-made-in.html

VANDALIA, Ohio -- A $5 million bond has been set for the man charged with killing a young Harrison Township mother in her home as she tried to protect her son.

Twenty-two-year-old Charlie Myers of Columbus made an initial court appearance in Vandalia Municipal Court. He is accused of killing Jennifer Nelson, having sexual contact with her 4-year-old son and leaving him at a highway rest stop.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/01/07/ddn010709myersweb.html

DAYTON — Accused killer Charlie W. Myers apologized to the family of Jenny Nelson, stating he was "sorry for the crime," as he was being booked into the Montgomery County Jail on Wednesday, Jan. 7.

"It's my fault," Myers said. "I apologize for the victim."

Myers, 22, of Columbus, made these statements as he was being taken into the jail at 3:40 p.m.

Myers faces 18 felony counts in the death of Nelson, 29, and the kidnapping of her 4-year-old son on Friday.

Myers is charged with eight counts of aggravated murder, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of aggravated robbery.

He also faces one count of gross sexual imposition, grand theft auto, receiving stolen property and having weapons under disability.

Myers, who had been held in the Franklin County Jail, was transported after Franklin County Common Pleas Court Magistrate Christine Lippe ordered his extradition following a hearing at 1:30 p.m..

Myers appeared in shackles and jail garb, but said nothing, during the brief hearing. He was represented by attorney William Ireland, who has represented Myers in previous cases.

Myers intended to have sexual contact with Nelson's son, according to Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer.

The boy was found Friday night at a highway rest area near the Madison and Clark county line.

Investigators later found Nelson's body in her Redder Avenue home in Harrison Twp. She had been shot to death, Plummer said.

Since he's effectively confessed, would you be in favor of procedural justice (let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals until we're done), or would you be in favor of substantive justice (he's fucking guilty, where's a rope?)?

What a ridiculous characaterisation of the procedural versus substantive justice. Not that I'm surprised. You suggest that procedural justice might prevent substantive justice; a suggestion on your part that is wholly unsupported.

Confession, clear guilt, or no, every single citizen is entitled to due process. No. That should not be waived.

Substantive in this case.

What a ridiculous characaterisation of the procedural versus substantive justice. Not that I'm surprised. You suggest that procedural justice might prevent substantive justice; a suggestion on your part that is wholly unsupported.

Confession, clear guilt, or no, every single citizen is entitled to due process. No. That should not be waived.

I submit the first OJ Simpson verdict as an example of procedural justice that prevented substantive justice.

I submit the first OJ Simpson verdict as an example of procedural justice that prevented substantive justice.

That's nice. This is not OJ Simpson. Your argument that procedural justice should be scrapped because of OJ Simpson is laughable...especially since you provide no analysis of the specific procedural provisions that 'prevented substantive justice'.

No. Because that would require you to actually know what you're talking about.

Your argument that procedural justice should be scrapped

Where did he say that?

The procedure can be part of the punishment. Why do you think they used to house death row inmates in front of the electric chair for years while they appealed.

Where did he say that?

I didn't, but she thinks I did, so I must have.

Where did he say that?

In the OP.

Do try to follow along.

"Since he's effectively confessed, would you be in favor of procedural justice (let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals until we're done), or would you be in favor of substantive justice (he's fucking guilty, where's a rope?)?"

DK is advocating, outright, executing him directly after his 'effective confession' which is scrapping procedural justice entirely.

In the OP.

Do try to follow along.

"Since he's effectively confessed, would you be in favor of procedural justice (let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals until we're done), or would you be in favor of substantive justice (he's fucking guilty, where's a rope?)?"

DK is advocating, outright, executing him directly after his 'effective confession' which is scrapping procedural justice entirely.

I'm merely giving alternatives. Not advocating. By your logic, I am advocating 10 years of trials and appeals.

I'm surprised at you...

DK is advocating, outright, executing him directly after his 'effective confession' which is scrapping procedural justice entirely.

No he's not. He's oversimplifying, and saying procedural justice takes too long, but he does not call for its eradication.

I didn't, but she thinks I did, so I must have.

It boggles the mind that you could be so ignorant of the effect of your own words. It's like...it's like...well it's almost like you don't actually understand what you're saying! But that couldn't be...

Perhaps, just to be safe, you should reread your own OP and actually think about the ramifications of your suggestions.

If you mean "but I haven't weighed in yet on either side" then forgive me for assuming your position to be consistant (that IS a little unreasonable with you, I realise) with your previous positions on the matter.

False dichotomy, isn't it? I'd go for both, and I don't see any conflict between the two in this case.

I'm merely giving alternatives. Not advocating. By your logic, I am advocating 10 years of trials and appeals.

I'm surprised at you...

No he's not. He's oversimplifying, and saying procedural justice takes too long, but he does not call for its eradication.

Right.

DK is so much more nuanced than I'm giving him credit for.

It boggles the mind that you could be so ignorant of the effect of your own words. It's like...it's like...well it's almost like you don't actually understand what you're saying! But that couldn't be...

Perhaps, just to be safe, you should reread your own OP and actually think about the ramifications of your suggestions.

If you mean "but I haven't weighed in yet on either side" then forgive me for assuming your position to be consistant (that IS a little unreasonable with you, I realise) with your previous positions on the matter.

Perhaps to be safe, you should read posts literally, and not with the assumptions your so willing to insert.

Perhaps to be safe, you should read posts literally, and not with the assumptions your so willing to insert.

You were just complaining that I shouldn't do that "By your logic, I am advocating 10 years of trials and appeals..."

False dichotomy, isn't it? I'd go for both, and I don't see any conflict between the two in this case.

Could be. It's likely that even with procedural, he'll get the death penalty.

Might take 20 years to see him lethally injected, but it will happen.

It boggles the mind that you could be so ignorant of the effect of your own words. It's like...it's like...well it's almost like you don't actually understand what you're saying! But that couldn't be...

Smae with you. You pointed out he he said "he's fucking guilty, let's get a rope" and "let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals" then claimed he only meant the first one. Cherrypicking much?

Since he's effectively confessed, would you be in favor of procedural justice (let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals until we're done), or would you be in favor of substantive justice (he's fucking guilty, where's a rope?)?

http://newstalkradiowhio.com/localnews/2009/01/high-bond-set-no-plea-made-in.html



http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/01/07/ddn010709myersweb.html

What on earth makes you think that if the guy confessed there would be 10 years of trials and appeals? He goes up in court, enters a guilty plea, the judge asks him a few questions to make sure the defendant knows what he's doing, and then he sentences him. Done. Not the 10 years of arsing about you undoubtedly wish for.

Perhaps to be safe, you should read posts literally, and not with the assumptions your so willing to insert.

Yes, because that's entirely characteristic of what you do.

What on earth makes you think that if the guy confessed there would be 10 years of trials and appeals? He goes up in court, enters a guilty plea, the judge asks him a few questions to make sure the defendant knows what he's doing, and then he sentences him. Done. Not the 10 years of arsing about you undoubtedly wish for.

You could confess at your first trial - there are systems in place for life sentence and death penalty cases that will run appeals over the objections of the defendant - just to make sure that procedurally, all the steps to be sure were taken.

It could easily take 10 years.

Could be. It's likely that even with procedural, he'll get the death penalty.

Might take 20 years to see him lethally injected, but it will happen.

So...?

Why are you presenting it as an either/or choice?

You deliberately mischaracterised the issue as a ‘one or the other’ proposition, interjecting a scenario you admit is ridiculous and exaggerated (10 years of appeals etc) which indicates a clear bias towards one answer (substantive justice as defined here erroneously by you). Unless you actually intend to suggest that you reject your own exaggeration and support procedural justice, the implication is clear that you believe procedural justice should be scrapped in order to arrive at what you define as substantive justice. Authority for my assertion that you’re calling for the scrapping of procedural justice comes from your statement about ‘let’s get a rope’ which, directly after an ‘effective confession’ would in fact violate every precept of due process.

I know that you like to pretend everyone is all wrong about you, and that they should either take you literally or figuratively (depending on which view makes you look less like a troll at any given time), but most intelligent people are actually able to see what you are doing, even if you think you’re getting away with some sort of clever deception.

Smae with you. You pointed out he he said "he's fucking guilty, let's get a rope" and "let's walk through 10 years of trials and appeals" then claimed he only meant the first one. Cherrypicking much?

Is this discussion going too quickly for you? Maybe my above post will help. Probably not though...critical thinking skills seem to be lacking.

So...?

Why are you presenting it as an either/or choice?

Some people lack patience.

Some people lack patience.

Well they can sit outside the prison and get a circle jerk going until it's time for the execution.

Some people lack patience.

Not if they're the ones being charged :p

Not if they're the ones being charged :p

The defendant in this case seemed awfully anxious to declare his guilt at a simple arraignment (where you don't enter a plea).

Some people lack patience.

Irrelevant.

Well they can sit outside the prison and get a circle jerk going until it's time for the execution.

I've got blisters on my fingers...

The defendant in this case seemed awfully anxious to declare his guilt at a simple arraignment (where you don't enter a plea).

Even if he begged the court to execute him right then and there, procedural protections are not capable of waiver to that extent for a reason.

Even if he begged the court to execute him right then and there, procedural protections are not capable of waiver to that extent for a reason.

You'll notice that he was safe being an idiot in an American court.

You'll notice that he was safe being an idiot in an American court.

No, I'll notice that US courts, even in the (thankfully now post) Bush era, have strong procedural protections. His idiocy or lack thereof does not alter, or impact that fact in any way.

The defendant in this case seemed awfully anxious to declare his guilt at a simple arraignment (where you don't enter a plea).

And? So?

So did this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Quick

and now to throw off neesika...

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/jewishbanana/Motivational%20Posters/ThatLook.jpg

and now to throw off neesika...

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p296/jewishbanana/Motivational%20Posters/ThatLook.jpg

Niiice...

And now that you've essentially acceded, I shall leave you to baffle with bullshit the various confused folk who many wander into this thread.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/motivator3484960.jpg