tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post798689439361256514..comments2024-01-25T14:51:13.377-05:00Comments on Gamso - For the Defense: On JuriesJeff Gamsohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-3559836030443508792015-05-14T12:24:03.291-04:002015-05-14T12:24:03.291-04:00This is getting tiresome, and I'm going to cut...This is getting tiresome, and I'm going to cut it off shortly.<br /><br />He is legally innocent. You don't like that, don't want to think it matters, fine. That's your right. It's also the law.<br /><br />Is he morally innocent? I don't know. Did he in fact abduct and kill Etan Patz? I don't know. Neither do you. Will he ultimately be convicted of the crime - at which point, but only at that point, he will be legally guilty? Maybe.<br /><br />That legal innocence (or legal guilty, by the way) may not match up with historic fact does not change the legal categories. But there are consequences to legal guilt that occur only when and if a jury unanimously concludes that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime. Unless and until a jury should so conclude that happens Pedro Hernandez is legally innocent. <br /><br />Wholly and completely and totally legally innocent. Whether he did it or not. Whether he's a saint or a monster. Those things have nothing to do with each other except that we hope they coincide. <br /><br />Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-26014278289065112612015-05-14T12:06:27.956-04:002015-05-14T12:06:27.956-04:00Well then by all means let's get him a job as ...Well then by all means let's get him a job as a day care provider. Jeff Gamso would not hesitate to leave his children in this guy's care. Affter all he is wholly, completely, totally innocent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07338043157723486505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-14046896304751746462015-05-14T11:25:34.327-04:002015-05-14T11:25:34.327-04:00No, he's innocent. Unless and until a unanimo...No, he's innocent. Unless and until a unanimous jury finds him guilty.<br /><br />Because the courts have said that double jeopardy does not mean what the words of the double jeopardy clause obviously mean (Rehnquist wrote that double jeopardy law it has its own logic [something different from actual logic though he didn't say that part]), that may still happen, but mistrial or not, he remains innocent for now.<br /><br />He may or may not (one more time) have actually done the things of which he's accused, which might make him factually guilty, but he is legally innocent.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-33003212255845444382015-05-14T11:14:48.488-04:002015-05-14T11:14:48.488-04:00Um, he's not "Innocent," or even &qu...Um, he's not "Innocent," or even "Not Guilty." It's a mistrial. He can still be prosecuted and found guilty, which would not be possible if he'd been found Not Guilty.<br /><br />It would take a unanimous jury verdict for him to be found Not Guilty.Piedmontnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-70744578963228880322015-05-13T14:10:51.991-04:002015-05-13T14:10:51.991-04:00I get that it's personal. But the crime, as a...I get that it's personal. But the crime, as a crime, is against the state. That's why criminal cases are captioned things like State v. Jones or US v. Smith. And why indictments say things like "against the peace and dignity of the state." Individuals get to bring civil actions. There are historic reasons the law developed that way, but that's how it works. It's something every first-year law student learns. <br /><br />Again, you don't have to like the system, but it's the one we have. Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-22581041113341285342015-05-13T14:03:28.164-04:002015-05-13T14:03:28.164-04:00I'm pretty sure being raped is pretty goddamn ...I'm pretty sure being raped is pretty goddamn personal. The only people who do not understand that are defense lawyers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07338043157723486505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-61682450038003752932015-05-13T13:13:13.369-04:002015-05-13T13:13:13.369-04:00Really, if you read thought the years of blog entr...Really, if you read thought the years of blog entries, you'll see that I regularly point out that crimes are offenses against the body politic, not against individuals.<br /><br />I'm not sure that makes the views of a person who is victimized by a criminal act irrelevant to whether there should be a prosecution, but such a person's view probably shouldn't be controlling.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-89649463589937548062015-05-13T13:08:23.054-04:002015-05-13T13:08:23.054-04:00Alternatively, I believe you think that prosecutio...Alternatively, I believe you think that prosecutions are about the crime committed against a person. They are not. They are about crimes committed against society. Often crimes committed against society occur in the form of a crime directed at a person, but it is the harm to society that gives society, in the form of the government, the duty to prosecute. For crimes committed against a person, there are civil charges. This is also why whether the victim "wants to press charges" is irrelevant to whether the government can prosecute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5945843206427351559.post-65351770499772618652015-05-12T10:07:08.757-04:002015-05-12T10:07:08.757-04:00No, I believe no such thing.
I also don't b...No, I believe no such thing. <br /><br />I also don't believe that a guilty verdict will end the trauma of a rape. <br /><br />More to the point, trials aren't about making victims feel better. They're about whether the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that so and so did such and such. Sometimes, probably most of the time although nobody really knows, when a jury says that the state did prove it, the now-guilty person in fact did whatever. That's the hope and faith of the system. The fear of convicting the person who didn't do it is at the heart of the reasonable doubt standard. That's central to the long history in Western religion, philosophy, and law of saying that it's better that some substantial number of factually guilty people go free than that even one factually innocent person gets convicted.<br /><br />Regardless of how you view any of that, our system says that unless and until a jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that each and every element of a charged crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent. You don't have to like that system, but it's the one we have.Jeff Gamsohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09869425697771419546noreply@blogger.com