From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: The NYPD situation (was: Say it ain't so)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 04:58:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.022407.13776@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>In article <RLK.93Jan2151152@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:

>>If they are found not guilty at trial, how can you say "they are in fact
>>guilty"?  Do you have any better method than a trial for determining guilt?

>>If someone takes the stand in his own defense and denies guilt, and that
>>statement is later found to be incorrect, he can still be tried for
>>perjury.  And if he didn't take the stand, then the prosecution didn't
>>present a strong enough case.

>I'll bet most murderers would prefer being sentenced for Perjury than
>for Murder.

>>Are you or are you not saying that Nelson should have been denied a
>>trial, 

>Not only was Nelson deserving of a fair trial, it was the
>responsibility of society to give him one.  The "show" trial that
>acquitted him in spite of the evidence is a shame to us all.

Oh, again, Jake somehow is smarter than the jurors.  The fact that the
evidence convinced *him* is enough.  Actually, it wasn't the evidence.
It was the newpaper reporting of the evidence.

If the jurors don't draw the same conclusion from the evidence that Jake
does, they must be biased.

>>that the evidence was so overwhelming that he should have been
>>sent to prison immediately?  

>In the US, people go through court before they go to prison.

Not according to you.  According to you, if the evidence is strong
enough, we ought to convict them.  Not give them a trial, just convict
them.  If the first jury doesn't do it, we ought to retry them.  You
said it in an earlier post.  

>>Are you saying that he should have been
>>retried until found guilty, because "everyone knows he did it"?

>I'm saying that the jury should have considered the evidence, instead
>of throwing it out in a theory of police conspiracy against minorities.

They did.  Only *you* have a conspiracy theory in this case.  A
conspiracy theory about black people not being able to be unbiased.
They just listened to their evil leader, Mayor Dinkins, as he told them
to acquit a guilty person.

>>Bosh.  How do you define "decent" and "indecent" (in a legal sense) in
>>any way other than "not guilty" and "guilty" without substituting mob
>>rule for justice?  South Africa solved this by "banning" people that the
>>state didn't like.  I don't want to emulate *that* here.

>This is precisely why I am so incensed that some juries have refused
>to convict the defendant, irrespective of any evidence that may be
>brought.  Such actions are indeed substituting mob rule for justice
>here in the USA.

Or maybe the evidence just wasn't strong enough.

>>You haven't even tried to come up with any better ideas.

>I've been arguing with lawyers who have steadfastly claimed that their
>system is working just fine.  It's not.

I'm not arguing that at all, and I'm not a lawyer.  I'm arguing that
this trial falls well short of proving your claim that the system is not
working.

>Perhaps the jury should be held to some higher standards.  Are
>jury-members liable to any punishment for being derelict in their
>duties?  Should juries that produce "bizarre" verdicts be liable for
>contempt of court?  Aren't there new (or old) dangers here?  

No, Jake.  There's no danger in saying that juries have to vote one way
or they'll be punished.  It worked great in Stalinist Russia, why can't
it work here?

>I may not have the answers but I can sure say that the current system
>is infamous for it's expense and for it's inability to achieve a
>consistent level of justice.  With many juries, we might as well toss
>a quarter. 

You still haven't shown this.  You've claimed it many times, but that
doesn't make it true.  And saying "This case didn't turn out how I'd
like it to, therefore this case was wrong, therefore the system is
messed up" just won't do it.

The US is also infamous for having an oversupply of lawyers.  Too bad
that it isn't true, despite what Dan Quayle said.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina