Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Even if the prosecutor wasn't convinced it is surely his job to represent the victim to the best of his ability.
...
It does seem odd that the prosecutor (acting for the victim) seems to have made that decision before the trial started.A prosecutor does not act for the victim (or alleged victim/complainant), the prosecutor acts for the state. A prosecutor has obligations not only to the court, and the state, but also to the accused. A prosecutor who forms a view that based on the totality of evidence available at any point in a case in would be an injustice for there to be a conviction is basically required to drop the charges.
And this is "injustice" in the sense of the David Bain appeal. It doesn't mean the person didn't do it, but it is viewed as wrong that someone should be convicted of something when serious new potentially exculpatory evidence arises, or where the evidence could not properly establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the person is guilty.
The charging of someone with a criminal offence is one of the greatest impositions of state power - it should only be done - and only be continued once started - if the state has a good faith belief that it would be proper and just to obtain a conviction given the evidence.
I do not know the full facts of the case to which Emma is referring, but I anticipate there may be more to it. This does not seem the type of case a prosecutor would readily drop.
-
... how can I have the ability to say no unless I also have a meaningful ability to say yes?
I don't see that this follows at all.
-
So, two widely unwatched men on the least watched network (which appears to be run by people who couldn't arrange the proverbial field trip to a brewery) is "history" because...?
Because ... The Tonight Show has been on the air for more than 50 years. It has a place in American history...
... as does Letterman.
-
Nope -- as long as The Simpsons is on air, there's no room for Fox to greenlight Seth MacFarlane to pinch off another load of mean-spirited poo gags. Seriously, The Cleveland Show is painful...
Spoke too soon.
Frankly, The Simpsons has been going downhill for so long, I just can't wait for it to die ... For me, seasons four and five was the peak, and pretty much each season since (21st, now) has been a bit less great than the previous.
I'd have said four through nine, but it hasn't just been a slow decline. I've really like a number of episodes in seasons 19 and 20.
-
Modern Family started well, I thought, and I managed some genuine belly laughs.
I don't see it being something I'd feel I need to watch, but it was okay.
The new episode of The Simpsons, however, just seemed to be missing humour.
Freaks and Geeks, too?
Both good, certainly, but the parallels less so. That said, I've just got the DVDs, so I guess I'll be able to reacquaint myself =)
-
Am I the only person who sees massive parallels between Glee and Ryan Murphy's earlier attempt at high school satire in Popular?
Life isn't as rosy for jocks as people might assume ... football captain surprisingly artistically talented ... popularity of cheerleader plummets after being kicked off the squad ... football quarterback knocks up girlfriend and they live together in basement? etc. etc.
The big entertainment story for me so far this year is the late night war. I suspect we're both really #teamletterman, but just following it on the web has me feeling like a part of history =)
-
Wilful distortion, maybe, but really clever distortion at that.
Onto the central point ... the argument - that prisoners who can't ever be paroled have no reason not to kill guards - sounds plausible in theory, but does it stack up?
We're not the first country to introduce three-strikes or life without parole. By how much did prisoner on guard violence increase in California after three strikes was introduced? I've seen a lot of people make this argument, but none of them has pointed to any evidence that suggests the fear is well-founded.
-
And how is that less bad than what I presume would be the standard manslaughter situation, where someone hits someone else in a rage, who then falls down and hits their head and dies?
The standard manslaughter situation would be more likely an intentional stabbing, where the offender just doesn't think about the likelihood of death resulting from his actions, so isn't guilty of murder.
-
[somewhat over-simplified], but:
Theft is stealing something.
Robbery is theft plus violence, or threat of violence
Aggravated robbery is theft + serious violence, or theft + violence + weapon, or theft + violence + multiple offenders (or threats to this effect).
Burglary is theft + being unlawfully on premises (e.g. theft after breaking into a home or office).
Aggravated burglary is theft + being unlawfully on premises + violence, or theft + being unlawfully on premises + weapon (e.g. a burglary where the offender is found by the homeowner, picks up a knife from the kitchen bench, yells "get back" and legs it).Aggravated burglary is not even always an offence involving violence.
-
did you mean triable summarily?
Yes I did.