Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush commutes Libby sentence

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #61
    Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
    On the other hand, if your perjury prevents, say a mob boss from going down for murder, isn't that worse than your perjury preventing someone from recovering $100?
    No. I assume that neither the murder or the theft(?) was "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"? If they were not, then the parties are innocent under the law...are they not? And if they are innocent, then why the hell would we sentence someone for that?

    Prove the crime or don't sentence the time.
    "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

    Comment

    • #62
      Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
      Because he commited perjury? A felony. For someone who is "tough on crime", it's a complete joke.

      Comment

      • #63
        Originally posted by PLATO
        No. I assume that neither the murder or the theft(?) was "proven beyond a reasonable doubt"? If they were not, then the parties are innocent under the law...are they not? And if they are innocent, then why the hell would we sentence someone for that?

        Prove the crime or don't sentence the time.
        You do realize, I hope, that you've basically given people a free license to perjury. If they lie through their teeth and the guy gets off, even if its proven it was because of a blatant lie, you'd say you can't prosecute because the crime wasn't proven?

        Why tell the truth in such cases?
        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

        Comment

        • #64
          This entire issue is a complete joke.

          Comment

          • #65
            Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


            You do realize, I hope, that you've basically given people a free license to perjury. If they lie through their teeth and the guy gets off, even if its proven it was because of a blatant lie, you'd say you can't prosecute because the crime wasn't proven?

            Why tell the truth in such cases?
            Perjury is still a crime, is it not?

            Set appropriate penalties for perjury. Don't base sentences on any other "potential" crime.

            If you can do the time for the perjury, then I guess you have that free license.

            Now...I need to understand how proving that some one perjured themselves (blatant lie) necessarily leads to the conclusion that a conviction would have been obtained?

            If they knew the "hidden truth" then they should proceed upon the grounds of that knowledge.

            My point is, that they are speculating on what the truth is...and IMO, we do not sentence people to jail on "speculation"
            "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

            Comment

            • #66
              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


              You do realize, I hope, that you've basically given people a free license to perjury. If they lie through their teeth and the guy gets off, even if its proven it was because of a blatant lie, you'd say you can't prosecute because the crime wasn't proven?

              Why tell the truth in such cases?
              has it been proven that the individual who in fact leaked, got off due to Libbys perjury? Who is that individual? What are the details of their case?
              "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

              Comment

              • #67
                Originally posted by PLATO
                Perjury is still a crime, is it not?

                Set appropriate penalties for perjury. Don't base sentences on any other "potential" crime.

                If you can do the time for the perjury, then I guess you have that free license.

                Now...I need to understand how proving that some one perjured themselves (blatant lie) necessarily leads to the conclusion that a conviction would have been obtained?

                If they knew the "hidden truth" then they should proceed upon the grounds of that knowledge.

                My point is, that they are speculating on what the truth is...and IMO, we do not sentence people to jail on "speculation"
                There are appropriate penalties for perjury, but there are different kinds of perjury. Sometimes they get someone free for a crime like murder and sometimes they pervent someone from getting $100. When you perjure yourself, you tend to hinder a conviction. What do you do then?
                “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                Comment

                • #68
                  Originally posted by PLATO


                  Perjury is still a crime, is it not?

                  Set appropriate penalties for perjury. Don't base sentences on any other "potential" crime.

                  If you can do the time for the perjury, then I guess you have that free license.

                  Now...I need to understand how proving that some one perjured themselves (blatant lie) necessarily leads to the conclusion that a conviction would have been obtained?

                  If they knew the "hidden truth" then they should proceed upon the grounds of that knowledge.

                  My point is, that they are speculating on what the truth is...and IMO, we do not sentence people to jail on "speculation"
                  So we should set the penalty for perjury high, at life imprisonment, because otherwise people will just perjure themselves and allow murders and the like to get off free.

                  This is one way to do it, but we would have a lot of people in jail for no good reason.

                  JM
                  Jon Miller-
                  I AM.CANADIAN
                  GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                  Comment

                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


                    There are appropriate penalties for perjury, but there are different kinds of perjury. Sometimes they get someone free for a crime like murder and sometimes they pervent someone from getting $100. When you perjure yourself, you tend to hinder a conviction. What do you do then?
                    You punish the perjury.

                    How can you definitively say that "they get someone free for a crime like murder"? If they had enough evidence to say that then they should try the murder case! If they don't and they are "speculating" that the perjury may have let a murderer go, then I say once again...we should not, imo, sentence people to jail based upon speculation.
                    "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                    Comment

                    • #70
                      As I said you would need to set the penalty for perjury very high then, otherwise certain types of serious crimes (murders/etc) would never get a conviction.

                      JM
                      Jon Miller-
                      I AM.CANADIAN
                      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                      Comment

                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Jon Miller
                        As I said you would need to set the penalty for perjury very high then, otherwise certain types of serious crimes (murders/etc) would never get a conviction.

                        JM
                        If that is what is needed. I am not judging if perjury's penalty is severe enough or not. It is curenntly what it is. It is unfair to extend that penalty based upon speculation. If they know something then prosecute it...if they don't then they should stfu.
                        "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

                        Comment

                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


                          You do realize, I hope, that you've basically given people a free license to perjury. If they lie through their teeth and the guy gets off, even if its proven it was because of a blatant lie, you'd say you can't prosecute because the crime wasn't proven?

                          Why tell the truth in such cases?
                          The better question is why investigate when you decide no underlying crime was committed. Or do we truly expect Armitage ever to face charges?
                          "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                          “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                          Comment

                          • #73
                            Originally posted by PLATO
                            You punish the perjury.

                            How can you definitively say that "they get someone free for a crime like murder"? If they had enough evidence to say that then they should try the murder case! If they don't and they are "speculating" that the perjury may have let a murderer go, then I say once again...we should not, imo, sentence people to jail based upon speculation.
                            Well, as Jon said, then the penalty should be very high, no? Otherwise, people who've lied in murder cases can get a murderer free. But then again, as Jon said, that's a pretty wide net.

                            If you don't base it somewhat on "speculation", then you draw a line that is either too harsh on most perjurers or doesn't provide much negative incentive for those perjuring themselves in, say, mob cases.
                            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                            Comment

                            • #74
                              How did his perjury make the actual case any less likely to succeed?

                              They know who made the leak, can prove it, yet nobody is charged.
                              "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                              Comment

                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Patroklos
                                How did his perjury make the actual case any less likely to succeed?

                                They know who made the leak, can prove it, yet nobody is charged.
                                Point being they knew prior to any of his testimony and still proceeded to set the perjury trap.
                                "Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson

                                “In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X