StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stofsk wrote:Sorry it's taken me this long to reply, I forgot my password. It's been awhile since I've had to log on y'know.

Thanks everyone for all your kind words. I'm just glad the ordeal is finally over. Now I can start to relax and figure out what I want to do with my life.

I'm still trying to get used to the fact I'm out and at home. It's a little surreal, but in a good way. I spent quite a few hours last night just surfing the web, to regain the sense I'm 'connected' to the rest of the world. It's funny how when you're cut off from something like the internet how much you start to miss it, the convenience, the interesting facts you can look up on google, and the porn (can't forget that).

It's funny how things have changed and how they've stayed the same. The board still feels familiar, but I can't help but wonder at what has gone on over the last two years of my absence.

Welcome back.

Lusankya wrote:

Stofsk wrote:The ironic thing is, intelligent and educated people were what we wanted on my jury.

But the American jury selection process is more complicated and involved than the Victorian model. Vympel's friend told me that in NSW you can elect to have either a judge sit on you or to have a jury. I don't know how long they've had that system in place.

I hear that it's best to have a judge if you're innocent and a jury if you're guilty.

That's what my grade 12 law teacher said. Unfortunately, according to my former roommate and law graduate, the crimes which used to be punishable by death in Canada (aren't anymore, but they were murder, treason, and something else) are trial by jury only. These also happen to be the kinds of crimes you really want trial by judge if you're innocent, due to the possible sentences if convicted and the emotional influences that the prosecution can play with on the jury.

Braedley wrote:That's what my grade 12 law teacher said. Unfortunately, according to my former roommate and law graduate, the crimes which used to be punishable by death in Canada (aren't anymore, but they were murder, treason, and something else) are trial by jury only. These also happen to be the kinds of crimes you really want trial by judge if you're innocent, due to the possible sentences if convicted and the emotional influences that the prosecution can play with on the jury.

That policy was based on the notion that a jury should always be assumed to be more sympathetic to the defendant, and henceforth less likely to convict in such cases. However, no real evidence has been presented to support this assumption. If the jurors are prejudiced and those prejudices can be turned against the defendant by an unscrupulous prosecutor, they could easily end up being much more harsh toward the defendant.

For example, if I were being tried for rape in Texas by a DA seeking re-election, I would bet big money that he would bring up my atheism and my use of pornography during the trial. Even if it was declared irrelevant and my defense lawyer objected to it, it would probably affect the jury's decision. A judge can instruct a panel of 12 fundies to disregard my atheism if he wants, but that doesn't mean they will actually do so.

Hooray! Time for the happy dance!

I'm so tempted to get a picture of that Episode 1 parade with the caption 'freedom' - I'm not going to, but I'm tempted!

WELCOME BACK STOFSK!

Welcome back, Chris!

Grrr. Yosemite is another FUCKING FUNDY SHITHOLE FULL OF FOX LOVERS.

I was asked nicely why I've been so happy during my days off, I tell them this bit of good news, and I get the fucking idiots going on about how he "Got off on a Technicality", "Judges fucking with perfectly good conviction", "Damn he got away with Murder, here we would have just killed him."

ok, Right now I am so pissed at my neighbors, particularly the park rangers.

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Grrr. Yosemite is another FUCKING FUNDY SHITHOLE FULL OF FOX LOVERS.

I was asked nicely why I've been so happy during my days off, I tell them this bit of good news, and I get the fucking idiots going on about how he "Got off on a Technicality", "Judges fucking with perfectly good conviction", "Damn he got away with Murder, here we would have just killed him."

ok, Right now I am so pissed at my neighbors, particularly the park rangers.

If by "technicality" they mean "no evidence"...

Are these the sort of trogs who think "If a person is arrested they are guilty by definition"?

Yes, that's what I'm dealing with.

These people still think Saddam was responsible for 9-11.....

and that Obama is a commie whose going to take away their guns....

I've got no time for anyone like that.

The attitude people like that seem to have is, the authorities must be right, whoever they suspect must be guilty. What they don't realise, is that cops are actually there to investigate and compile evidence, it's the prosecution service who then takes over and determines whether or not there is a case. Justice works best if these two forces are relatively independent (insofar as they can be, considering they're supposed to be a partnership).

When one side is little more than servants of the other, miscarriages of justice are bound to occur. Cases go forward when they shouldn't - just because a cop suspects someone of committing an offence, doesn't mean he can on his own authority put the case through court. For it to proceed, the DPP or what you yanks call the DA's office has to ok it.

But above all, you have the court as the ultimate authority. And the court is personafied as the guy (or gal) who wears the robe. It's good for people to have faith in the police, after all they are there to catch crooks and protect people, but at the same time when a judge or group of judges make a decision, especially in the higher courts (and there are none higher than the State Full Court of Appeal, other than the High Court in Canberra), then you can rest assured that there exists no authority higher or more respected or more knowledgeable over the law. The same standard that applies to police and prosecutors ought to be applied to judges, otherwise it's a double-standard. Just think of what sort of qualifications/experience you need to apply to become a cop, then think of what you need to become a judge. Justice Vincent, who sat on me, is the most senior serving judge in Victoria. And the other two judges, Justices Nettle and Vickery, well, to be elevated to the Court of Appeal means you have to be pretty damn good at being a judge.

Oh, and the next time someone shoots their mouth off about 'getting off on a technicality', tell them this: in Victorian law, for appeals, there exists a provision in the actual legislation that states something like "A ground can be successful, but if no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred then it needn't be upheld." It's called the proviso, and can be applied to those sort of cases where someone is more than likely guilty, but is seeking to escape punishment over a technicality. Or a minor error that the presiding judge made. Only appeals with merit are supposed to succeed.

It is great to see you back on board!

Chris, great to see you are back!

I'm curious, have you considered writing about this experience? I don't know about publishers in Aussieland but this seems like the kind of story that they would eat up in the US--especially told from the perspective of a normal kid in his twenties that gives the story a quality of "it could happen to me".

I'm not trying to trivialize what you've been through but if you can leverage it into some financial success it might be worth thinking about.

When a prosecution consists of "He's an internet nerd and a loner! Internet nerds are creepy and dangerous!" I'm not sure how *anyone* could give that the time of day.
But of course, people do. I suppose because they're prejudiced, are idiots or just don't want to believe that the state would ever actively try to convict somebody who's innocent.

A heartfelt "welcome back". Since I only know what I read on here, and never actually talked to you, I feel
like anything else would be too much.

Still: congratulations and welcome welcome welcome (welcome) back *does the welcome back dance*

welcome back dude

Good to see you posting again Stofsk!

Welcome back, Chris!

Darth Onasi wrote:When a prosecution consists of "He's an internet nerd and a loner! Internet nerds are creepy and dangerous!" I'm not sure how *anyone* could give that the time of day.
But of course, people do. I suppose because they're prejudiced, are idiots or just don't want to believe that the state would ever actively try to convict somebody who's innocent.

Remember, Australia is currently trying to ban the internet, so of course the average yobs in the jury are going to be convinced by that argument, since anyone using the internet is by definition a homicidal child rapist. A government minister basically said exactly that several weeks ago.

Welcome back, Stofsk.

Wow, talk about drama!

I missed this whole thing, but I'm glad to hear that justice is finally being done, at least.

Holy Shit!!! Welcome Back Stofsk!

I'm really glad your back Stofsk.

Is it too soon to make jokes about picking up the soap?

I don't really know you (but I have seen you around), but good too see you're back after that ordeal.

And to further emphasize a point Mike made in an earlier post: Jurys need to have some kind of accountability, especially for shit like this. It also doesn't help that I see most people as idiots, especially when it comes to major decisions that should be based on evidence and logic, but instead can end up being decided by "I'm a fucking idiot" whims.

Think how difficult it must be to do jury duty in the first place. It's a bit like being thrown in the deep end of the pool and told you either sink or swim. The failure is more systemic than anything else; it isn't really fair to have a go at the people who get called for jury duty, after all it's not like they asked to be there.