these are conditions in which no jury would ever allow them to slide,
so ... it doesn't seem as though the jury system would fail in these
cases. The problem is that once you make the decision that these acts
don't require a jury you've created a precedent which allows the
lawyers to decide that any given thing doesn't require a jury and then
you'll have no juries for repeat offenders after long, and then
because they're happy with that, no jury for people accused of murder,
etc...
> I meant the people that:
> Forcefully take over the Japanese embassy
> Take over an entire theatre of innocent people
> Take over a school full of children with automatic weapons
> and bombs
> Hijack an airplane
> Hijack a cruise ship and start tossing people overboard
> I think there's a distinction.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jochem van Dieten
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Russia vs Terrorism
> Howie Hamlin wrote:
> > My opinion is that trials should be reserved for
> > non-terrorists.
> But who gets to determine who is a terrorist?
> Recently a political activist that had thrown ketchup at
> a politician was charged with terrorism here. The judge
> didn't agree, but I find that scary enough.
> Jochem
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=45569&DE=1
http://www.fusiontap.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
