Crime Weekly News: Idaho Murder Suspect Arrested

[Marcus]

On the flipside, the number of provably guilty people that have gotten off scot-free or with a relative slap on the wrist is pretty shocking. I suppose that’s the trouble with humans trying to hold humans accountable for misdeeds - we’ll create a system with good intent, but maybe not the best execution, no pun intended.

- Doc

That, to me, comes out of this idea that “no actual innocence” is necessary. Using the word “actual” implies any known guilty person can be found not guilty if only the story of his guilt can be sufficiently placed in doubt. Which typically takes lots of money, and really good argumentation. The actual truth seems irrelevant, and the money issue creates another layer of inequity. It moves far away from the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The language used by the lawyer I quoted is shortcut for these complexities, and I certainly believe that people deserve the best defense possible, but on the surface it just reads as unethical and disgusting, especially for families of victims who expect courts to provide justice.

It really can’t be that hard for the lawyer quoted to understand how offensive it is to use the phrase “no ACTUAL innocence” is needed to find a person not guilty, or, in layman’s terms, effectively innocent. I know it doesn’t technically mean innocent, but effectively speaking, the outcome is the same. It is insensitive and cruel for lawyers to speak this way.

[Res Ipsa]

On the flipside, the number of provably guilty people that have gotten off scot-free or with a relative slap on the wrist is pretty shocking. I suppose that’s the trouble with humans trying to hold humans accountable for misdeeds - we’ll create a system with good intent, but maybe not the best execution, no pun intended.

- Doc

That, to me, comes out of this idea that “no actual innocence” is necessary. Using the word “actual” implies any known guilty person can be found not guilty if only the story of his guilt can be sufficiently placed in doubt. Which typically takes lots of money, and really good argumentation. The actual truth seems irrelevant, and the money issue creates another layer of inequity. It moves far away from the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The language used by the lawyer I quoted is shortcut for these complexities, and I certainly believe that people deserve the best defense possible, but on the surface it just reads as unethical and disgusting, especially for families of victims who expect courts to provide justice.

It really can’t be that hard for the lawyer quoted to understand how offensive it is to use the phrase “no ACTUAL innocence” is needed to find a person not guilty, or, in layman’s terms, effectively innocent. I know it doesn’t technically mean innocent, but effectively speaking, the outcome is the same. It is insensitive and cruel for lawyers to speak this way.

I'm baffled. It seems to me that the word "actual" is carrying an awful lot of baggage here. It's clear that you find the lawyer's use of it offensive, unethical, disgusting, insensitive, and cruel. It's also true that what the lawyer said is an accurate description of the defense lawyer's required perspective under our system. It may be an ugly truth, but it's still the truth.

Would it be inaccurate to guess that there is some backstory that would help me understand your reaction to the lawyer's phrasing?

[Marcus]

That, to me, comes out of this idea that “no actual innocence” is necessary. Using the word “actual” implies any known guilty person can be found not guilty if only the story of his guilt can be sufficiently placed in doubt. Which typically takes lots of money, and really good argumentation. The actual truth seems irrelevant, and the money issue creates another layer of inequity. It moves far away from the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

The language used by the lawyer I quoted is shortcut for these complexities, and I certainly believe that people deserve the best defense possible, but on the surface it just reads as unethical and disgusting, especially for families of victims who expect courts to provide justice.

It really can’t be that hard for the lawyer quoted to understand how offensive it is to use the phrase “no ACTUAL innocence” is needed to find a person not guilty, or, in layman’s terms, effectively innocent. I know it doesn’t technically mean innocent, but effectively speaking, the outcome is the same. It is insensitive and cruel for lawyers to speak this way.

I'm baffled. It seems to me that the word "actual" is carrying an awful lot of baggage here. It's clear that you find the lawyer's use of it offensive, unethical, disgusting, insensitive, and cruel. It's also true that what the lawyer said is an accurate description of the defense lawyer's required perspective under our system. It may be an ugly truth, but it's still the truth.

Would it be inaccurate to guess that there is some backstory that would help me understand your reaction to the lawyer's phrasing?

Yes, it would be inaccurate.

[Res Ipsa]

I'm baffled. It seems to me that the word "actual" is carrying an awful lot of baggage here. It's clear that you find the lawyer's use of it offensive, unethical, disgusting, insensitive, and cruel. It's also true that what the lawyer said is an accurate description of the defense lawyer's required perspective under our system. It may be an ugly truth, but it's still the truth.

Would it be inaccurate to guess that there is some backstory that would help me understand your reaction to the lawyer's phrasing?

Yes, it would be inaccurate.

Thanks. I'll just have to stick with baffled.

[canpakes]

Or that people should be sent to prison based on a mere preponderance of the evidence as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

It would seem that the problem in many verdicts rests with how folks on a jury interpret the word, ‘reasonable’.

[Res Ipsa]

Or that people should be sent to prison based on a mere preponderance of the evidence as opposed to proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

It would seem that the problem in many verdicts rests with how folks on a jury interpret the word, ‘reasonable’.

Yes. And if you were to read a standard form jury instruction on the definition of “reasonable doubt,” you might be shocked at the circularity. However, if I recalling correctly, the pattern jury instructions address the distinction between some doubt and reasonable doubt.

As an aside, I think the lawyer Marcus quoted was way over his skis. I recently was involved in a big case in which cell phone data was relevant. The usefulness of that data wasn’t that it precisely identified the whereabouts of the parties. It was that it was consistent with one side’s theory of the case and contradicted the other’s. Prosecutors know the accuracy of cell phone location, and a good one won’t claim more precision than is possible.

[Jersey Girl]

Aside: People online are hopping up and down screaming out for a death penalty case on this one.

You don't want that.

[Marcus]

Aside: People online are hopping up and down screaming out for a death penalty case on this one.

You don't want that.

Why not? His age? Mental abilities?

Personally, i am against the death penalty, but idaho does have it.

[Jersey Girl]

Aside: People online are hopping up and down screaming out for a death penalty case on this one.

You don't want that.

Why not? His age? Mental abilities?

Personally, i am against the death penalty, but idaho does have it.

Because a DP conviction requires a unanimous vote from the jury. Not easy to get. That's why Casey Anthony remains free.So what you really want in a case like this is four life sentences that run consecutively without the possibility of parole.

[Marcus]

Why not? His age? Mental abilities?

Personally, i am against the death penalty, but idaho does have it.

Because a DP conviction requires a unanimous vote from the jury. Not easy to get. That's why Casey Anthony remains free.So what you really want in a case like this is four life sentences that run consecutively without the possibility of parole.

Oh i see. Oh boy. I recall seeing that CA got lucky, i think because the jury was only offered very extreme options?

Anyway, i see your point.