From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Say it ain't so
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:17:43 GMT

jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>In article <BzFuB5.6B2@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
>>jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:

>>>My main agenda is to see to it that citizens and decent people are
>>>protected by the law of the land.

>From who is it that we are trying to protect INDECENT people?
>From DECENT citizens?

Your problem is presuming that you can tell which is which.  The law
admits to no such distinction until a jury's verdict of guilty is
returned.  As always, your cart is before your horse.

>(I know, we want to protect them from abuses of governmental powers.)

I should hope so, but that's only part of it.  Protecting them from
the rule of the mob is in there somewhere too.  I'm sure you endorse
that, since a failure of that protection cost Yankel Rosenbaum his
life.

>>And, law  requires that jury verdicts be regarded as valid,
>>if not accurate.  

>Now you are defending Law, not Justice.

Both, though I claim less certainty as to what makes for justice than
you do.  But, I'm sure you'll be disgusted that I don't always find it
necessary to choose between them; they often come as a packaged set.
Regardless, my statement above defends both by defending the jury
trial.  Since your only suggestion to replace it (trial by Jake, in
essence) seems somewhat less likely to be just, I'll continue to defend
the jury system as a guardian of justice, even when it displeases you.

>>You will accuse me of being a lawyer, for making that
>>distinction.  I plead guilty.

>Obviously.  Do not be surprised that lawyers are seen in such a poor
>light these days in the US.

I'm not.  Prejudice for lack of information is everywhere.

>Fine.  This is "innocent until proven guilty."  This rule protects
>innocent people from being hounded by the "law".  

Why did you write "law" in quotation marks?  Are there some laws that
are laws, and others that are "laws?"  Let me guess, the law against
murder is a law, but the law against double jeopardy is a "law," right?

>You are still
>defending Law, not Justice.  And you still haven't explained how
>justice can possibly be served now in the Rosenbaum/Nelson case.

Justice is always served when a jury subordinates its passion for
a conviction to its oath of fairness.  No act of a jury can bring
Rosenbaum back from the dead, not even an illegal conviction.  Two
injustices are not justice, even when combined.

>>The Nelson jury did
>>not find guilt.  That's all.  They didn't find innocence.  They
>>didn't convict (as you have said) the NYPD.  

>Those officers who swore in court that Nelson confessed to the crime
>won't agree with you.  Nor will a few thousand other cops.

Then they aren't paying attention, any better than you.  The verdict
was "not guilty."  That's all.  If you want to read more into it than
the jury wrote, I can't help you.  But you and the cops are just plain
wrong if you think anything beyond those two words were spoken by the
jury.  Now, I'm sure it helps preserve your passion to assign deeds to
the jury that are not theirs, but it does nothing to aid the discussion.

>>>Say again?  The law doesn't require one to tell the truth?  What's all
>>>this stuff about "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
>>>truth"? 
>>
>>It's an oath in court...
>>An alleged confession
>>obtained in a police station (have you ever even been in one?) at
>>3am with no referee of fairness present is hardly comparable.

>I haven't understood this paragraph.  After you twice told us that
>Lemrick Nelson had no duty to tell the truth under oath in court,

I have not said this.  You asked about Nelson's duty to be truthful
to the police, and I said there is no law that says you have to tell
the police the truth.  You have to tell the truth under oath, but
until you've been sworn, there is no general obligation to tell the
truth to the police.  

>Further obfuscation isn't necessary.

Does this mean you're not going to assign things to juries they haven't
done, statements to me I haven't made nor continue to answer every
question you are asked with another question?
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish