Originally posted by no1marauderThis shows these people are not in the first place interested in fact-finding, interested in finding the truth, but rather in scoring points, winning the "game". Do you agree this is a manipulative technique in "proving" the accused is guilty ?
Prosecutors here argue that if you call the police you are showing that you knew what you did was wrong. If you don't call the police, then you're trying to conceal it and thus know the act was wrong. So either way, they insist it's probative of guilt and an aggravating factor.
Originally posted by ivanhoe(Shrug). It's an argument; what weight it will have is up to the fact finder. Presumably a prosecutor who brings murder charges believes that the person is guilty of murder; once he accepts that premise he's probably going to tend to view the facts as supportive of his initial conclusion. I asked you before to specify what you mean by a "manipulative technique"; in a broad sense, any argument is a "manipulative technique" as you're trying to get someone to agree with you. What matters is how persuasive the argument is in explaining the facts, not how much you're trying to "manipulate" somebody or not.
This shows these people are not in the first place interested in fact-finding, interested in finding the truth, but rather in scoring points, winning the "game". Do you agree this is a manipulative technique in "proving" the accused is guilty ?
Originally posted by invigorateMost likely not.
Would the verdict/sentence have been the same if the child was not disabled?
Do disabled people have a lower life value in the face of the law?
In theory / officially: No. In reality, I believe they do more often than not.
Is being disabled a provocation to kill?
I am not sure I understand this question correctly. Do you mean that by being disabled, you provoke others to kill you (thus taking away some of the responsibility from the murderer, saying he or she was provoked)? This sort of thinking certainly happens in the larger community. A parent who kills a "normal" child will usually not get any sympathy from the community. However, when the child is disabled, many people will see the parent who kills the child partly as a victim rather than a person who has committed a terrible crime. But I find it rather absurd to say that the disability provokes the killing. However, if the life of disabled people is seen as having a lower value, and the killing of disabled people is excused more easily (both in the face of the law and morally), this will lower the natural inhibition for killing.
I posted this site a while ago in a different context: http://www.geocities.com/growingjoel/murder.html
It's about the murder of autistic people (most often by their parents), but most of it is relevant for other disabilities as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Presumably a prosecutor who brings murder charges believes that the person is guilty of murder; once he accepts that premise he's probably going to tend to view the facts as supportive of his initial conclusion."
(Shrug). It's an argument; what weight it will have is up to the fact finder. Presumably a prosecutor who brings murder charges believes that the person is guilty of murder; once he accepts that premise he's probably going to tend to view the facts as supportive of his initial conclusion. I asked you before to specify what you mean by a "manipulative ...[text shortened]... ument is in explaining the facts, not how much you're trying to "manipulate" somebody or not.
..... once he accepts that premise ..... 😲 ... he's probably going to tend to view the facts as supportive of his initial conclusion .... 😲 😲
That is what is called a tunnel-vision ..... not being able anymore to see the facts in a different and maybe more truthful way. It is an absolute no no for professional prosecuters and police officers.
Read carefully what you wrote.
How did the prosecutor reach his "initial conclusion" ? Based on the facts ? ..... once he accepts that premise (???) .... he is "probably" going to view the facts as supportive to his initial (???) conclusion (???)
A prosecutor who does his work in the way you described should be kicked out of his job ..... IMMEDIATELY !!
premise
One entry found for premise.
Main Entry: 1prem·ise
Variant(s): also pre·miss /'pre-m&s/
Function: noun
Etymology: in sense 1, from Middle English premisse, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin praemissa, from Latin, feminine of praemissus, past participle of praemittere to place ahead, from prae- pre- + mittere to send; in other senses, from Middle English premisses, from Medieval Latin praemissa, from Latin, neuter plural of praemissus
1 a : a proposition antecedently supposed or proved as a basis of argument or inference; specifically : either of the first two propositions of a syllogism from which the conclusion is drawn b : something assumed or taken for granted : PRESUPPOSITION
2 plural : matters previously stated; specifically : the preliminary and explanatory part of a deed or of a bill in equity
3 plural [from its being identified in the premises of the deed] a : a tract of land with the buildings thereon b : a building or part of a building usually with its appurtenances (as grounds)
Originally posted by ivanhoeI won't even bother to refute all the nonsense you spouted and how you added to and twisted my words. Anybody who can read can see it. Please stay away from a court of law, Ivanhoe; your ignorance of legal principles is appalling.
Marauder: "Presumably a prosecutor who brings murder charges believes that the person is guilty of murder; once he accepts that premise he's probably going to tend to view the facts as supportive of his initial conclusion."
..... once he accepts that premise ..... 😲 ... he's probably going to tend to view the facts as supportive of his initial conc ...[text shortened]... ildings thereon b : a building or part of a building usually with its appurtenances (as grounds)