Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (72280)	6/14/2008 8:15:25 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Respond to of 542049

There is also the "attempt" class of crimes people can be charged with: Attempt crimes are crimes where you more than merely prepare to commit the crime. The essence of the crime of attempt is that the defendant has failed to commit the actus reus (the Latin term for the "guilty act") of the full offense, but has the direct and specific intent to commit that full offense. The normal rule for establishing criminal liability is to prove an actus reus accompanied by a mens rea ("guilty mind") at the relevant time (see concurrence and strict liability offenses as the exception to the rule). en.wikipedia.org

To: Cogito who wrote (72280)	6/15/2008 7:58:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 542049

I'm not sure I understand what point you're trying to make. Generally, I'm challenging the notion that we can just plunk terrorists into our criminal justice system and all will be well. Specifically, in that post, I was probing for any basis for your confidence that conspiracy convictions are feasible. I don't see one. And it has been shown over and over again that you can indeed get information from co-conspirators without torturing them. It has? I didn't think you could get a co-conspirator to testify in court against his fellows no matter what you did to or for him. It seems utterly unfeasible to me. And even if you could, how credible would he be? Now, perhaps American juries would not look too closely at whether the witness is credible and just take the opportunity to convict everyone tried, which cuts the legs out from under the habeas corpus right. Then, I suppose, we'd have a movement to free all the unjustly convicted rather than the unjustly held without trial. Allen, I am just not seeing how this could work. I fully appreciate the concern for any innocents who might be held now in this bizarre setup under which we are operating. I just don't see how using the US criminal justice system would make everything all right. Sure, it would fix that specific problem that is stuck in everyone's craw, the innocents held without trial. But so would simply releasing everyone in Guantanamo, which is a much simpler solution to the problem, one that doesn't require such contortions. The net practical effect would be pretty much the same. The optics would be different. The clamor for habeas corpus seems flip to me. I don't see any analysis of how it would work. I don't see any consideration of unintended consequences. I just see strong feelings that holding innocents is wrong and damn the torpedoes. Which is why I'm asking all these questions.