Gun rights in criminal law, securing rights after conviction

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by kazenatsu, Sep 25, 2020.

  1. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If the person was convicted for a crime they didn't commit because they chose to plead guilty to it or not fight it, it is their fault, it is not a problem of/with the law. SMFH
     
  2. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It would either be the state if it were a felony at the state level, each state has their own laws, or the feds if at the federal level. It is up to the convict to show they are no longer a public threat.
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it is not.

    Situations can result in people being convicted all the time when they did not commit it.

    If a defendant chooses to take it to trial, the cost to them might be nearly 2 years in prison (if they are NOT convicted), and (if they are convicted) a much much longer time in prison than they would have gotten if they had just plead guilty.

    What they are being asked to do, in this situation, is trade their more immediate physical freedom, for potential lifetime loss of civil rights.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  4. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Then the person should get a lawyer and fight the conviction. This isn't rocket science. If the person is to inept to stand up for themselves and their rights, then they don't deserve them.

    When people are wrongly convicted, or once they are determined to have been wrongly convicted, all their rights are automatically restored.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the price they could pay for that is many years in prison.
    And no less time in prison even if they win the case.

    Like I already explained, there could be situations where the defendant should be sentenced to time in prison, even though we may not know for certain that they committed the crime.
    In such a case, it might not be wrong to give the defendant additional prison time for taking it to trial, and wasting everyone's time.

    So you seem to be telling the defendant they should do something they shouldn't do.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not the point I was trying to make.

    And to try to answer your statement, it would depend on the semantic definition of "wrongly convicted".
    By that, do you mean that the court and jury exercised an error in judgment convicting the person, or that the person did not actually commit the crime?
    They are two separate completely different things.
     
  7. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What if the person finds themselves in a situation where they will very likely be convicted of a crime they didn't commit?

    Does your logic take into account that possibility?

    I keep trying to tell you that society deciding you should spend a little bit of time in prison does not mean society has decided that you absolutely did it with over 99% certainty.

    I think maybe that is the source of your logical error.

    I tried to touch on this more in another thread with some examples:
    example #1, Felons losing their rights, Rape / domestic violence

    Despite what you seem to think, a court-held trial will not always "reveal the truth".
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  8. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So you prefer them to not get a lawyer or to not fight their conviction of which they plead guilty to? SMFH

    If they had a lawyer from the beginning they probably wouldn't spend any time in jail/prison.

    At no point in time should a person be convicted without evidence they did the crime, that it is what a trial is for, to determine if the evidence is there to convict or not, but when someone pleads guilty without a trial, their own stupidity put them in that position. Hence, your article of the girl pleading guilty in your earlier link, her own stupidity for not having a trial for which it is then upon the state to prove the marijuana and paraphernalia was hers.

    How you come to this conclusion is beyond understanding. SMFH
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you honestly believe it's always in the best interest of the defendant to take it to trial if they did not do the crime?

    Because if that's the case, that expresses profound naivety.
     
  10. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Maybe you didn't understand what I was telling you or weren't listening.

    There are situations where if they fight the conviction, they will not be any better off, in terms of amount of time they have spent in prison, and they have a high chance of things being worse, sometimes much worse.

    Now, if for some reason you disagree with what I have just stated, I can go into more detail and explain.
    But I don't think I should have to.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  11. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Then they keep fighting to prove their innocence, that is all that can be done. If they were given a trial with a jury and the jury came to the conclusion the person was guilty based on the evidence, then the person should keep fighting and pushing for all channels to prove they are not guilty.

    It is a rare instance when a person is wrongly convicted with a jury trial.

    Evidence is a bitch. If the person was found guilty by 12 jurors, its kinda hard to overcome that evidence.

    Again, it is a rare instance in which a person is wrongly convicted via a jury trail.
     
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's always "evidence". The question is just what type of evidence.
     
  13. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you actually believe that?

    If that's what you believe then I don't think we can continue to have a discussion here.

    Evidence can still be enough to send an innocent person to prison.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  14. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Yes I do. It is then up to the prosecution to prove you are guilty.

    Naivete has nothing to do with this. SMFH

    Now you are increasing the severity of the crime if they are spending time in holding awaiting their trial, this is where a bond comes into play. You like to keep moving the goal posts.
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And what about for those persons who, for some reason, are not released on bond?

    Do you know that there are unethical prosecutors who will intentionally try to get the judge to decide not to release on bond, so it will make it easier to win their case?
    Or get the bond set so high the defendant cannot afford it.


    I'm not trying to move the goal posts, but this is a complicated issue with many facets.

    And you cannot understand the issue as a whole unless you can understand how all these smaller separate issues come together.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  16. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Again, it is up to the prosecution to put that evidence at the feet of the defendant.
     
  17. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Then their perceived crime was probably pretty heinous, thus not being eligible for bond.
     
  18. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even that's not always true.

    See, to even make my main argument and dispel all these common myths people put up as objections, it's like I would need to start a thousand separate threads about all these individual issues, and each one is deep and kind of complicated.

    I've started numerous threads in the past here about people denied bond for rather stupid reasons.
    Do you want me to start linking them to here?

    sentenced to 8 years for uploading data from employer's computer
    Bail denied to scientist who allowed China to steal US technology
    Maria Butina, convicted of being a "Russian agent"
    New Jersey court denies bail because man had empty magazines
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  19. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I actually do, unless you talk to the criminal in prison, for which they will all tell you they are innocent. SMFH

    Less likely to happen if the person has a lawyer at trial and a jury of 12.
     
  20. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Common myths? SMFH Nobody has denied that some individuals are wrongly convicted, however your constant moving of goal posts is getting tiresome.

    A person with a jury trial is much less likely to be wrongly convicted. A person pleading guilty to a crime they didn't commit is simply their stupidity, i.e. your linked article of the girl and the weed and paraphernalia in the car.
     
  21. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you don't understand.
    I'm not saying the jury is making a mistake.

    The jury can be making the proper and correct choice with the evidence presented before them, and still send an innocent man to prison.


    Like I repeatedly have told you "wrongly convicted" has two different possible semantic meanings. Can you please explain what you mean by it?
    Do you mean an innocent person ended up being sent to prison, or do you mean the judge and jury ended up making an illogical or wrong decision?


    Maybe you seem to have trouble understanding how a logical intelligent jury with the best intentions could send an innocent man to prison with the evidence available before them? Or maybe you think that doesn't happen very often? (In that case, you'd be very wrong)
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  22. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If a person is denied bond it is usually for a pretty good reason. So lets look at the 4 links you provided.

    Your first link is to a Russian uploading trade secrets, he was denied bail because he was thought to be a flight risk, i.e. he would go back to Russia and would never stand trial.

    Your second link is for a Chinese scientist who took illegal money, lied about it and failed to inform the University of what he was doing with Chinese scientists on campus. Looks like he could be a spy giving a way trade secrets. Again, flight risk back to China.

    Your third link is pretty self explanatory, Convicted RUSSIAN AGENT. SMFH

    Your fourth link is New Jersey, what more is there to say...This would be a good civil rights case since California just had their same law overturned and found unconstitutional.
     
  23. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It is less likely for that to happen, that does not mean that it can't happen. SMFH
     
  24. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,629
    Likes Received:
    11,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sad to say, that's kind of another semantic statement.
    It might appear to be for a "good reason" to the judge, but that does not mean it actually was for a good reason.

    The other parties (false witnesses, detectives, unethical prosecutors) can easily manipulate the judge's perceptions of the facts.

    And the judge may have prejudice or biases of their own, especially when it comes to gun owners. There have been numerous cases where gun owners have been denied bond after accusations of threatening, pretty much because they were gun owners.

    Example: Someone accuses me of threatening to shoot them. I get bond because I'm not a gun owner.
    Someone else who's a gun owner gets accused of threatening to shoot someone else. They are denied bond.

    This is just one example. There are innumerable other possible situations.

    The judge might be extremely prejudiced/biased against a particular thing, and if that thing exists, or is even alleged, it might not take much for them to decide to deny bond.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2020
  25. shortbox69

    shortbox69 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Jesus ****ing christ dude, look there will never be a perfect system, **** happens to some people, is it always fair, no it's not. Is there a way to rectify the situation if its found a person was wrongly convicted, yes their is. It's that simple.
     

Share This Page