So you think he should be found guilty now?
If you can't deal with the one he provided, it's your failure, not his.
So, "not guilty" now?
Not even close.
Oh. "Not guilty" again?
Make up your mind.
Answering old threads thread
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
So, "not guilty" now?
Make up your mind.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nope. This was clearly explained to you a few posts ago so what tripped you up?
The one he provided was lame and wouldn't make it anywhere near court. Dunno how the legal system works in New Zealand but over here there's a certain standard of evidence required before things go before a jury. The only sensible way to address a scenario that lacks relevant details/specifics is to point out the shortcomings and how such would never be aired in a courtroom. This is fact, it wouldn't. Dealt with.
Nope. There's no verdict that can be given but only honest opinion that in itself can't determine the likelihood of guilt or innocence given the vagueness of the scenario.
My position has been utterly consistent on the score and explained in such a way that even those with basic reading comprehension could understand. Does that not apply to you?
Now, if you wanna continue with your ridiculous "verdict" nonsense then by all means continue to make a clown of yourself. Bear in mind though how thick/dishonest it'll make you look if you persist with it however.
Last edited:
So, "not guilty" then?
Nope.
You could deal with a hypothetical.
Of course there is.
Consistently noncommittal and unresponsive.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Nope.
Dealt with.
Nope, not legally.
Detailed and substantive unlike your one sentence tropes.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Not to anyone with a basic reading level so thick/dishonest it is with you then. Noted. Well, fun as it usually isn't to bandy words about with you Stripe there's a documentary coming on soon about carpet cleaning which will doubtless be more entertaining. Fare thee well!
Right Divider
Body part
If someone cannot be found guilty due to lack of evidence... then they are not guilty. Why are you so stubborn?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Wow, you too? Eh, shouldn't be that surprised really. In order for a case to get to court there has to be sufficient evidence for it to get that far. Derf's scenario doesn't come close to the level required. Therefore trying to argue that it should be a case of giving a guilty/innocent verdict from a judicial perspective is a complete non starter. If that's what he was angling for then he should have fleshed it out a whole load more cos it wouldn't even get to trial as it stands. Heck, with him, even if the husband were caught in the act of forcing himself on his wife he'd find the guy not guilty of rape anyway where proof is 100% established.
What beef do you have with my answer whereby the only honest opinion one could have with the vagueness of his scenario would be indeterminate? Husband could be innocent, he could be guilty.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You're talking about a man raping a woman. Whether it is provable or not, in the leftist's mind the man is always guilty, evidence or not.
Wrong. There only has to be a charge presented for a judge to be necessary. The evidence is what is presented in court.
You can't dismiss the evidence before it is brought to court. That's called stacking the deck, and it should make ANY competent judge immediately suspicious that there is malicious intent involved.
Is a hypothetical question meant to test your ability to judge.
You have failed spectacularly.
So you reject the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
(Which, by the way, only applies to court decisions, as if someone commits a crime, they are guilty the moment they do so, not when they are proven to have done so.)
In other words, the man would be considered innocent, because he had not been proven guilty.
Thus, "not guilty" is the correct response. It's amazing how much you've waffled to try to get out of giving that simple answer.
Deal with the scenario as it's presented, not how you want it to be presented.
Because it denies "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
Wrong, it would be "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
AKA: Not Guilty.
If he committed the crime, then he's guilty the moment he did so. But that's a different matter than when the case is brought before a court of law, which is what Derf's scenario is talking about.
Right Divider
Body part
Without evidence... not guilty is the only legal option.
You do understand that many guilty people cannot be PROVEN guilty and therefore must be legally declared not guilty, right?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
And as explained to you prior, there isn't enough "evidence" for his scenario to even go to court. No jury or judge would even be required so reducing it to posters giving a "verdict" is nonsense. The best you can do is address it as hypothetical on it's "merits" (or lack thereof) as I have so what beef do you have with my answer in that regard?
Yes in regards to your latter. Verdicts themselves don't determine guilt or innocence in themselves. Unfortunately plenty of people have been found innocent of a crime that they were culpable of. Likewise, others have been wrongfully convicted of guilt. System ain't perfect.
Right Divider
Body part
So not guilty is the only legal option.
Duh.
Duh. So glad that you cleared both of those up for us.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
A charge needs to be backed up with substantial evidence before it gets to court. You surely know that much?
Derf's scenario was vague and frankly, feeble. If you consider it a test of judgment and that I failed spectacularly then I'm sure you won't be too surprised to hear that I value your judgment as much as a lava lamps. Or anyone who considers it anything other than rape if a man forces himself on his wife.
Of course I don't reject the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", why on earth would I? Pointing out that such a scenario is far too vague for it to be approached from a legal standpoint is a different thing altogether and can be summarily dismissed on that score just as it would before it reached a courtroom anyway.
It's amazing how much you (and others seemingly) don't get how the law works. As it is I've given my answer on the matter which is as clear as it could be short of pictures.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Wouldn't even get that far as explained multiple times so was already moot. Duh.
You're welcome.
Right Divider
Body part
Dismissal is effectively the same as not guilty.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
As far as I can tell, you're saying "not guilty" is legalese that only technically belongs at the end of a court trial.
Further, you're meaning that because there isn't sufficient evidence to indict, therefore there would be no trial, indictment being prerequisite to a court trial.
Therefore, "not guilty" would never occur, strictly and technically and legally speaking, since there wouldn't even be an indictment in the scenario.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Tell ya what JR, let's address Derf's scenario as presented:
"Consider this scenario. A married couple has sex on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Afterward, the wife complains to a friend about Tuesday's tryst, which friend gets incensed about the husband forcing himself on her, and convinces her to file rape charges because she wasn't feeling up to sex that day. What should the judge's verdict be, and what should be the punishment, if he's found guilty?"
So, we have a married couple who apparently have sex on Monday to Wednesday. Weird that they should have sex on set days like that cos that's not how relationships work but ho hum. The wife's complaint seems to be about her husband forcing himself on her and her friend encouraging her to file rape charges. If that's what's been relayed then she's right to do so but that's as much as there is to go on.
So, this goes to court, just this. Nothing else. (It wouldn't go to court obviously on this alone but playing along with the scenario).
The jury are then expected to give a verdict. Well, if I was a juror on the "case" then I'd be abstaining on the grounds of it not having legal precedent. Chances are I'd be surrounded by jurors who were equally baffled, bemused and exasperated as to why they've had their time wasted and an equally exasperated judge wondering how in blazes did this case get to court at taxpayer expense.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No, it isn't.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, for starters, you're dealing with a guy who doesn't consider it rape if a husband forces himself on his wife with 100% proof of guilt. He considers it..."something else". He'd find the husband innocent regardless.
He then concocts up this feeble scenario where guilt or innocence can't be established and like others here can't seem to understand that there isn't enough "evidence" for it to even get to court before a jury/judges ruling.
What's most telling is the amount of hang ups over the ludicrous legal aspect rather than the atrocious notion that a husband forcing himself on his wife is somehow not rape.