Posting Towards Gomorrah

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
According to a CDC study cited in the article I posted, 72 percent of prisoners reporting sexual encounters said the sex was consensual.

I bet more than 72% also claimed to be the top.

[Spanky]

This is quite a dramatic change in English common law.

Criminal justice

Third time unlucky
Sep 14th 2006
From The Economist print edition

New rules on double jeopardy score a first conviction

Armed to the hiltA MILESTONE in English legal history was reached this week when a man who had been cleared 15 years ago of strangling a young mother was convicted of her murder after a re-trial. Under the common-law principle of double jeopardy, no one may be tried twice in the same jurisdiction for an offence of which he has already been acquitted. But this ancient legal safeguard was breached by new rules that came into force last year. These allow re-trial for certain serious crimes when “new and compelling” evidence comes to light.

Double jeopardy is one of the oldest legal concepts in Western tradition, dating at least from the days of Demosthenes. It has been a maxim of English common law for 800 years (though sometimes more honoured in the breach). Enshrined in the constitutions of America, Canada and India, and included as an optional protocol in the European Convention on Human Rights, the ban on double jeopardy is part of the legal legacy Britain gave the world.

Many consider the principle as sacrosanct as habeas corpus or trial by jury. Without it the power to prosecute can be used as an instrument of oppression. But Tony Blair, the prime minister, thinks that Britain's criminal-justice system needs a “profound re-balancing” in favour of the “law-abiding majority”. The double-jeopardy rule was amended to that end.

There is no doubt that William Dunlop, the first person to be convicted under the new rules, did assault Julie Hogg sexually and murder her in 1989. He pleaded guilty on September 11th at the Old Bailey in London. But he told a different tale to two juries in 1991; they failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted. When he admitted the killing later he could be charged only with perjury.

Pressure for a change in the law came after an official inquiry into the murder in 1993 of Stephen Lawrence, a black London schoolboy, found that the principle of double jeopardy could cause “grave injustice to victims and the community”. Three suspects, all white, were acquitted after a private prosecution brought by the Lawrence family collapsed for want of evidence. Despite strong opposition from some civil-liberties campaigners, lawyers and backbench MPs, the government pushed through the double-jeopardy reform as part of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.

To assuage the fears of those who worry that the new rules will be abused or foster endless uncertainty, the situations in which re-trials can be permitted have been tightly defined. Only cases involving the most serious crimes—such as murder, rape and armed robbery—can be reviewed. Any new investigation must be sanctioned by the director of public prosecutions. Only if he is satisfied that new and compelling evidence has been found will he refer the case to the Court of Appeal. That court must concur with his findings before giving the go-ahead for a new trial. Even human-rights activists agree that it was right for Mr Dunlop to be convicted.

For all the attempt to limit the number of decisions that can be reopened, however, many still fear the weakening of double jeopardy could open the door to a host of re-trials as advances in forensic science, such as the use of DNA, turn up new evidence. According to the Home Office's National Crime Faculty, there are 35 murder cases in which acquitted defendants could be re-investigated. But the Crown Prosecution Service says that no other cases are being considered for re-trial at present.

[Spanky]

This is quite a statement by Tony Blair:

But Tony Blair, the prime minister, thinks that Britain's criminal-justice system needs a “profound re-balancing” in favour of the “law-abiding majority”. The double-jeopardy rule was amended to that end.

And they don't even use the exclusionary rule.....

[Jack Manfred]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I thought that Hugo Chavez's comment about still smelling the sulpher from the devil's having been in the room the day before was kinda funny, but on the whole, his speech--epecially his referring to Bush as the devil for the entirety of it--did nothing to make me think particularly highly of the UN.

ETA: Or, because I didn't scroll before posting, 2, to what Rangel said. I had a discussion with three very, very liberal people this morning about Chavez's stand up act yesterday and we all agreed it was offensively disrespectful of the President.

San Franciscans apparently disagree with Rangel, RT, and her liberal friends. Poll on Chronicle website with a plurality calling Chavez a champion of the poor and anti-imperialist.

Then again, we're all godless sodomites out here.

[SlaveNoMore]

Jack Manfred
San Franciscans apparently disagree with Rangel, RT, and her liberal friends. Poll on Chronicle website with a plurality calling Chavez a champion of the poor and anti-imperialist.

Then again, we're all godless sodomites out here.

The only city in the country where Barry Bonds gets a standing ovation - 'Nuff said.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Keep your straw in your pants

translation: I read the FB, but only for the articles.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The only city in the country where Barry Bonds gets a standing ovation - 'Nuff said.

In this town not only is drug use not looked down upon, it is encouraged.

[Spanky]

[Spanky]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
translation: I read the FB, but only for the articles.

My father has a subscription.

[SlaveNoMore]

Now that the Dems have said repeatedly on record that "We're with McCain on this issue", how are they going back out without looking ridiculous?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Now that the Dems have said repeatedly on record that "We're with McCain on this issue", how are they going back out without looking ridiculous?

They will flip, then flop. They were against McCain before they were with him, so its a full circle journey, fully justifiable. And CNN will report as such.

[Spanky]

This really doesn't seem fair. We hit Iran, and they hit Israel. I guess it is the same as Gulf War I, but those Israelis sure can't catch a break.

:shrug:

Iran warns of 'lightning' response to any attack
Sep 22 5:54 AM US/Eastern


Iran has warned Western powers the armed forces would hit back "like lightning" against any attack as it crowed over its military prowess and showed off firepower at a major army parade.
Thousands of members of the armed forces and the whole panoply of Iran's ballistic missile arsenal were on display at the parade, including the Shahab-3, a weapon whose range includes arch-enemy Israel.

"We want peace but we warn the expansionists not to think of an aggression against Iran as we can defend the fatherland and Islam," Vice President Parviz Davoodi warned.

"Our lions are so powerful that they can strike the enemy like lightning and destroy him," he added.

The comments of Davoodi -- standing in for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has yet to return from a visit to the United Nations in New York -- come at a time of mounting tension over Tehran's contested nuclear programme.

The United States has never ruled out using force to make Iran comply over its atomic drive that Washington charges is aimed at making nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for civilian energy purposes only.

Iran has also never been shy of warning it would retaliate if the Islamic republic was attacked and the parade included its longest-range missile, the Shahab-3, which has the range to hit Israel and US installations in the Middle East.


"Are you not proud to see the Shahab-3, a missile with a range of 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles)?" boomed the commentator over the loudpeakers as two green Shahab-3s were driven past the parade ground on the back of a truck.

The missile was up until last year believed to have a range of 1,300 kilometers (800 miles) but Iran has worked on extending its range.

However the missiles appeared to lack the anti-Israeli and anti-US slogans that were daubed on the weapon at last year's event and caused European diplomats present to stage a walk-out in protest.

A succession of other missiles were also on display, including the short-range Fajr and the medium-range Nazeat, Shahab-1, Shahab-2 and Zelzal.

Thousands of soldiers clutching their rifles marched past Davoodi and other dignitaries to the sound of martial music in an event that has become Iran's most significant annual display of its military might.

The parade, which marks the anniversary of the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, took place just opposite the mausoleum built for Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on the outskirts of Tehran.

"Our armed forces have no need for their power to be based on atomic weapons, this power is based on our convictions," said Davoodi, restating Tehran's denial of US allegations it is seeking nuclear weapons.

While Iran remains at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear programme, it has been engaged in talks with the European Union to find a solution and in New York Ahmadinejad said that discussions were on the "right path".


Davoodi also played up the importance of major war games that Iran has staged in the past month which have seen it claim the development of new missiles and warplanes.

"In the recent manoeuvres the armed forces showed their power, notably in the areas that were once the monopoly of the great powers," said Davoodi.

"We will resist until the end," proclaimed a slogan on the main grandstand erected for the parade, which coincided with a march to Beirut by supporters of Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah to mark its resistance against Israel.

Among the thousands of armed forces personnel marching past the main grandstand were ethnic minority members of Iran's Basij militia in their national dress, including Kurds, Baluch, and for the first time Arabs.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Now that the Dems have said repeatedly on record that "We're with McCain on this issue", how are they going back out without looking ridiculous?

Has anyone read what the substance of the compromise was? I've not come across anything yet that explains it.

[SlaveNoMore]

Why Mommy is a Democrat





and, because fear mongering is never too early...



Note the big, horrible elephant stomping by.