Fallout
04-30-2004, 10:55 AM
Honestly, I hear people use this all the time. Well, the founding fathers wanted the state to only have one crack at convicting someone, the founding fathers wanted the electorial college to give each state more power, the founding fathers wanted this, the founding fathers wanted that.
The problem with that is that its like eleivating them to a regilous icon status. You have no idea what they would really want and trying to guess offen causes disagreement and arguments over the ideas we are discussing. The eletorial colllege is outdated. Frankly, if you want to have the president come vist your town, don't move to backwater alabama. People that live in rural areas shouldn't get some of the benifits that big city people do. You choose to live in a state that has 500,000 people? Fine, deal with it. Don't ***** and whine when no one gives a **** about your hole in the mud.
Double jeopardy is a very bad idea. If new evidance is discovered, the state should get another shot. Just because you got away with it doesn't mean you should be safe from being convicted again. The state going back and re-trying someone without finding new evidance is wrong, but with new info, its fine IMO. How do we decided this do you ask? The same way we do everything else. A judge. Do you really think the founding fathers wanted a rapist and murderer to get away just because they didn't find the murder weapon until after the trail?
Trying to decide what people who have been dead for 200+ years want is bull****. Thier ideas are outdated and don't work in the modern world. Trying to apply 18th century ideas to a 21st century world is retarded
The problem with that is that its like eleivating them to a regilous icon status. You have no idea what they would really want and trying to guess offen causes disagreement and arguments over the ideas we are discussing. The eletorial colllege is outdated. Frankly, if you want to have the president come vist your town, don't move to backwater alabama. People that live in rural areas shouldn't get some of the benifits that big city people do. You choose to live in a state that has 500,000 people? Fine, deal with it. Don't ***** and whine when no one gives a **** about your hole in the mud.
Double jeopardy is a very bad idea. If new evidance is discovered, the state should get another shot. Just because you got away with it doesn't mean you should be safe from being convicted again. The state going back and re-trying someone without finding new evidance is wrong, but with new info, its fine IMO. How do we decided this do you ask? The same way we do everything else. A judge. Do you really think the founding fathers wanted a rapist and murderer to get away just because they didn't find the murder weapon until after the trail?
Trying to decide what people who have been dead for 200+ years want is bull****. Thier ideas are outdated and don't work in the modern world. Trying to apply 18th century ideas to a 21st century world is retarded