Is Trump Mad?

[Jdsk]

In that case the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" was the driving factor: I think this term is no longer used in English criminal courts?

“Only convict if you are satisfied so that you are sure”
https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-right-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/

Jonathan

[Vorpal]

A court decides if somebody has committed a crime. Not a poster on an internet forum.

There is plenty of evidence in the public domain. Whether he can be convicted of anything is another matter.

Legal processes are of necessity somewhat tortuous, but in this instance 'mm' is probably right: "innocent until proven guilty" is a powerful premise used in many countries. I recall, on my one and only turn of duty as a juror, we acquitted a defendant who, with hindsight, I think was guilty. In that case the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" was the driving factor: I think this term is no longer used in English criminal courts? Anyway, just as we were filing out of the courtroom after delivering our "Not Guilty", we heard the defence counsel talking about the defendant's 'previous'.... which of course we hadn't been told about....

I remember, years ago, another none-too-brilliant prezzie, one Richard Nixon, inadvertantly prejudiced a much-publicised criminal trial, that of Charles Manson, by describing the defendant as 'guilty' in a public speech. He got a pasting for that and had to apologise.

My 2p worth. Sorry, Vorpal!

It's ok. I'm not president. and my opinion on Trump doesn't hold any weight, anywhere. It certainly won't prejudice any legal cases.

I generally agree with legal processes. And I don't think Trump should be convicted of anything, that cannot be proven in a court of law. Beyond reasonable doubt is still used in US courts. But that is a different thing to whether he has committed crimes. There is plenty of evidence for what he has done in the public domain. I think, however there are several problems with attempts to prosecute Trump. The first is that it would be extremely difficult for him to get a fair trial, anywhere. A second is that he would be likely to be pardoned (by a current or future Republican governor, president, etc.). A 3rd is that the US legal system has grown increasingly corrupt and politically manipulated. Even getting past all of that, I don't know if they will think it is worth the political ill will to pursue prosecution.

The world is a very different place to the one that could force Nixon to apologise.

[Jdsk]

Beyond reasonable doubt is still used in US courts.

There's a difference between that as the legal standard and what is used in the instructions to juries in different jurisdictions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt#United_States

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

In the modern era, is the system for impeaching a US President anything more than a glorified vote of no confidence?

It has struck me as a bit of a strange process. In modern societies the separation of state from judiciary is regarded as very important and yet the US seems to mix the two arms somewhat e.g. President appointing of federal judges. With impeachment seems the Senate is acting as a Court and deciding innocence or guilt largely on political and personal allegiances. All pretty direct mixing of state and judiciary.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Above all, you could "direct" the members of the US Senate till you were blue in the face - or blue down one side and red on the other - on the standard of proof for a guilty verdict and most would vote on party lines.

Psamathe has posted while I was scribing. My main point would be in relation to impeachment that the Founding Fathers had no way of predicting the growth of party politics.

[Vorpal]

Above all, you could "direct" the members of the US Senate till you were blue in the face - or blue down one side and red on the other - on the standard of proof for a guilty verdict and most would vote on party lines.

Psamathe has posted while I was scribing. My main point would be in relation to impeachment that the Founding Fathers had no way of predicting the growth of party politics.

A number of them were opposed in principle to any sort of political party, and unhappy with their development in early US politics.

[Jdsk]

Edited: Crossed with the pints about the Founding Fathers.

It has struck me as a bit of a strange process. In modern societies the separation of state from judiciary is regarded as very important and yet the US seems to mix the two arms somewhat e.g. President appointing of federal judges. With impeachment seems the Senate is acting as a Court and deciding innocence or guilt largely on political and personal allegiances. All pretty direct mixing of state and judiciary.

Executive, legislature and judiciary are all parts of the government of the "state".

And the US Constitution is so fascinating because these issues were explored so clearly in its creation, and we have the documents and know the individuals.

Those interactions: impeachment by Congress (legislature over executive) and appointment of judges (executive over judiciary) were deliberately chosen as the least-worst options, and we can see the working that led to them.

Jonathan

PS: And of course we can use their example to throw light on the UK's appalling lack of control over the powers of our executive.

[Jdsk]

When Trump was removed there was some humorous questioning about what fact-checkers were going to with their spare time.

"President Biden: Fact-checking his first month in office"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56039528

Jonathan

[mikeymo]

In that case the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt" was the driving factor: I think this term is no longer used in English criminal courts?

“Only convict if you are satisfied so that you are sure”
https://barristerblogger.com/2020/04/29/the-standard-of-proof-in-criminal-trials-peter-hitchens-is-right-and-lord-goddard-was-wrong/

Jonathan

Yes, that is, more or less, how we were instructed, on the three occasions I was a juror.

After the summings-up (summing-ups?), the judge would turn to us and launch into his final summation/instruction. The first time I was rather taken aback, it was almost as though he was telling us a story - "members of the jury, on the 24th of March 2010, an alarm alerted the security guard....".

Anyway the burden of proof went along very similar lines each time.

"In order to find the defendant guilty, the prosecution must prove their case. And how do they do that? By making you sure of it."

The change from "beyond reasonable doubt" is down to an appeal court decision, apparently:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2009/2563.html

I don't know if the change helped us much. I daresay my fellow jurors who were determined to find the most outlandish explanations for compelling evidence would have done so anyway.

[mikeymo]

But that is a different thing to whether he has committed crimes.

Yes, and that is always the problem. In general the idea that the courts are a truth seeking mechanism has done great harm to how people think, in many ways. The criminal courts are, of course, not truth seekers, but a mechanism for regulating society. A decision making process. Because we have the idea that guilt must be definitively proved, then the outcome is "it is better that 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man is convicted". The don't seek to establish the truth, the absolute truth. They seek to make a decision, the best they can.

This notion that something has to be proved, arising from the court system, has, I think crept into other areas. So one can't "prove" that anthropogenic climate change is happening, because there might be another explanation. You can't "prove" that the MMR jab doesn't cause autism. And the acme of un-provability - you can't "prove" that god doesn't exist.

Of course many people accept this schism between a proven crime, and something actually being done. Or to be more precise, they use the difference between them to support their point of view. So that might be things like:

OJ didn't murder his wife.
The Birmingham Six didn't do the bombing.
The Central Park Five didn't commit the rape.

Or the opposite, depending on, well, what? Your cultural prejudices? Your feelings about the legal system, the oppressive state, the fine character of police officers, the corrupt nature of the police, how slimy Harvey Weinstein is? Or even whether, well, he just deserves it, because we don't like him? That would apply in the case of Donald Trump, amongst many people, including posters here, I think.

The minute you find yourself feeling - "I hope he ends up in jail, because I don't like him" - you need to think about how much you really believe in justice, due process, and equality before the law. And yes, I think there are many people, including here, who feel exactly that. And if your response is "well, Donald Trump did such and such" then there's really no point discussing any further. We aren't 5 year olds.

[Vorpal]

The minute you find yourself feeling - "I hope he ends up in jail, because I don't like him" - you need to think about how much you really believe in justice, due process, and equality before the law. And yes, I think there are many people, including here, who feel exactly that. And if your response is "well, Donald Trump did such and such" then there's really no point discussing any further. We aren't 5 year olds.

I don't care if he ends up in jail, or not. But I do not have any confidence that the judicial system is able to come to an appropriate conclusion in his case. I would like to think that they could. And under some circumstances, it might be feasible.

There is no equality in the law in the USA. There are some things for which the system works reasonably well, but the system is rife with corruption and systemic biases.

[kwackers]

There is plenty of evidence in the public domain.

- that's not evidence until it's put before a court.

Evidence is evidently evidence.
Doesn't need court approval to be classed as such.

If I see you throw a brick through a window then that's still evidence even if it never goes to court.
In Trumps case, evidence can exist regardless of whether anything is done with it.

Personally I no longer care. He's gone and won't be coming back.
If evidence of wrongdoing exists then by all means put it before a court and let them decide.

[Vorpal]

There are some things for which the system works reasonably well,

When it comes to a conclusion you agree with?

... but the system is rife with corruption and systemic biases.

When it comes to a conclusion you disagree with?

I invite you to examine your own biases. Though I doubt you will accept that invitation.

Donald Trump has committed crimes.

based upon what? Apparently, based upon...

There is plenty of evidence in the public domain.

- that's not evidence until it's put before a court.

If Trump is found guilty of something, will that be an example of the "system working reasonably well"?

And presumably if he found not guilty of something or other then that will be the "corruption and systemic bias?"

The courts don't exist to reinforce prejudices, however much you would like them to.

As I said, the losing side often blames the referee.

I examine my own biases on a regular basis. I don't like the suggestion that I think the system works when I agree with something, and not when I don't, and I categorically refute it.

The courts do not exist to reinforce biases, but they do so, nonetheless, especially with regards to race.

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publi ... sparities/
https://www.judges.org/news-and-info/mo ... om-racism/
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65585/

I have personal experience with the US court system, and have seen it work to my advantage and disadvantage. In my case, when I had the money to do, I was able to make work to my advantage. When I did not, I lost on all fronts, independent of the strength of my case.
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/15/arch ... ck-of.html

[mikeymo]

There is plenty of evidence in the public domain.

- that's not evidence until it's put before a court.

Evidence is evidently evidence.

Interesting use of language. Is this the new "Brexit is brexit"?

Doesn't need court approval to be classed as such.

Well it needs court approval to be heard as evidence by the court, so yes it does. Before that it's just something that you call "evidence". Which includes anything that somebody on a cycling forum feels like uttering. You may choose to describe something you read on Facebook or heard on the news, or your mate down the pub told you, as "evidence". But it's not. It's just superannuated gossip. When a court accepts it as evidence, to be heard by the court, then it is evidence.

But look, some people on a British cycling forum have said Donald Trump has "committed crimes", and that "there is plenty of evidence". So it's pointless having an actual trial, isn't it? Just lock him up now, guilty as charged, in the court of UK Cycling.

[kwackers]

- that's not evidence until it's put before a court.

Evidence is evidently evidence.

Interesting use of language. Is this the new "Brexit is brexit"?

Doesn't need court approval to be classed as such.

Well it needs court approval to be heard as evidence by the court, so yes it does. Before that it's just something that you call "evidence". Which includes anything that somebody on a cycling forum feels like uttering. You may choose to describe something you read on Facebook or heard on the news, or your mate down the pub told you, as "evidence". But it's not. It's just superannuated gossip. When a court accepts it as evidence, to be heard by the court, then it is evidence.

But look, some people on a British cycling forum have said Donald Trump has "committed crimes", and that "there is plenty of evidence". So it's pointless having an actual trial, isn't it? Just lock him up now, guilty as charged, in the court of UK Cycling.

If evidence exists then evidence exists.
It's called "evidence" long before a court says it is.
When physicists perform experiments they don't wait for the legal profession to declare their evidence valid, they use the language exactly as it's intended to be used.

If I wanted to follow your example then I'd argue that evidence is evidence right up to the point where a court declares it inadmissible.