StrangeSox

I will dig up the several studies I've read on eye-witness testimony that indicates it is pretty much worthless.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 01:44 PM) Obvious the answer is to punish the greedy bastards who do have jobs. That's actually a serious question and the biggest bug in capitalism. We require people to work for a wage in order to provide for their family, but many willing individuals cannot find employment while factories sit shuttered and wealth continues to be accumulated by a small percentage of people. That doesn't mean market economies are bad or that we need to replace capitalism with Communism, but it is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed.

Read the rest, again, nothing I really disagree with in there. I'll admit that my understanding of things like high-frequency trading is based solely on Frontline specials, though. I do recall them interviewing one company who had been in the business for a while and never had one month where the profits weren't higher than the previous month. It seems absurd on its face and IIRC it now dominates the trade volume. "The markets" have just become algorithm outputs.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 01:47 PM) I just posted what amounts to my manifest about the economy, and no one even responded. I guess I should know not to post a dissertation in here anyway. Not sure what came over me, that was meant to be a short post, and I just kept writing (waiting on a job running). I looked through the first ~1/2 already, the diagnosis part, and didn't find anything I disagreed with.

It's pretty sweet that they expressly set up their governing document to allow changes and expressed, over and over, the problems with static, unresponsive governments. Removing economic agency and increasing dependence on an aristocracy doesn't actually increase individuals freedoms.What is one to do when you must earn a wage to survive, but there are no jobs available?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 01:01 PM) If they believed any different, why didn't they create a strong central government, instead of one as absolutely weak as possible? "They" were not a monotonous group. "They" tried a weak federal government at first and it failed, so the Federalists argued for a stronger one (and won). And, again, who cares? We're not beholden to late-18th century political philosophy, aside from what is written in the Constitution and the laws they created.

Not according to Scalia, there's no guarantee to a new trial if new evidence is found that confirms your innocence.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) Just skimming through this, the guy had about 10 different appeals/petitions. While not all of them weighed evidence as to his innocence, the parole/conviction board of Georgia actually did. He basically got a second trial to establish that his first trial was wrong...documents were submitted, testimony from his "new" affiants were provided, and Davis himself was allowed to speak. They ultimately rejected his petition finding no reversible error or evidence of his innocence. As to this petition, it's not like the Court just read some briefs. They clearly analyzed their new affidavits and compared it to their prior testimony and of the evidence of the trial itself. The first guy's recantation wasn't that he changed his mind, only that he now could not remember exactly what he saw. (pg 129-130) And he couldn't support at all his claim of being coerced to testify (in fact he expressly said he wasn't). The second guys recantation and new testimony completely contradicted other witness testimony about the night of the shooting, so while his recanted testimony was admitted as credible, it essentially threw in doubt all of his testimony (both old and new). The third guys was determined to be a complete lie and totally unbelievable (134-135). Instead of wasting the next 20 minutes finishing this, it seems to me all of this "new" evidence was incredibly suspect (as I had rightly presumed) or that the recantations didn't really change any of the the "damning" portions of their prior testimony establishing the guys guilt. Couple that with the fact that this guy got more of his fair share of chances to prove his innocence (and couldn't), I just don't see the uproar. In fact, this again just proves that cable news headlines just make the country dumber. Sounds like a s***ty system when the headline is "7 of 9 witnesses recant testimony of guilt, man still put to death." People read that an assume he's now innocent. Total bulls***. And BTW it was 7 out of 36 state and 5 defense witnesses that recanted their testimony. The rest did not. And it doesn't look like any of them were eye witnesses, just other people with alleged knowledge of the case (including a jailhouse snitch). Did you read this before claiming that George "murdered" him? notice that the burden of proof is shifted from the state to Davis, though. If the state convicted on a weak case that later falls apart, Davis has to prove his innocence, the state doesn't have to justify their case. eye-witness testimony is pretty much s*** regardless of whether the person giving it honestly believes it, and it's especially useless when it is later recanted or contradicted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:10 PM) This is totally false. what is totally false? So, they were friends of Davis and told the truth at the time and got him convicted, but now recant their story? The problem with this line is that if they're unreliable witnesses, they're unreliable witnesses. And police coercion is incredibly difficult to prove; how long did it take for the CPD people who literally tortured suspects to face any charges? There were 9 witnesses who attested to Davis' involvement and whereabouts that night. Obviously that number doesn't include ballistics experts, any psychological or character witnesses, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) I forgot no one advocated on behalf of making sure the government didn't gain too much power. Sure, many were concerned about that. And just as many were concerned about individual freedom, they recognized that a system that created dependence on wealthy land-owners could also limit the freedom and agency of the lower classes. Mixed in with this whole appeal to "what the founders wanted!!!" is the assumption that social programs are 'enslavement' instead of empowerment.

Hell, Paine advocated for a land-tax on property owners in order to fund a basic income guarantee. Even in the 1700's they recognized the importance of economic agency and the perils of being dependent on private employers for subsistence. Madison worried explicitly about the influence business owners would have over policy, since employees would be compelled to vote in ways that offered policies most favorable to the business.

Claiming that this country was founded on "individual freedom" in an attempt to justify modern capitalism and nonsense claims that social programs are "enslavement to the government" is just ridiculous.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:23 AM) btw here's the ruling from a year ago: http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pd...uling082410.pdf This is the reasoning used to dismiss at least one of the recantations: Well hey, the cops said they didn't tell her to lie in court, she must be making this up!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:45 AM) This country wasn't founded on individual freedom, but indentured servitude to a socialistic government? Damn. I must have failed history and never realized it. This country wasn't founded on individual freedom, no. See: blacks, women, Indians. But more seriously, this country wasn't founded on Capitalism and rejection of the concept of social contract. It was founded at a time when a majority of the population wasn't dependent on employment by corporate entities that remove all liability from their owners and are treated literally as equals to real people. To claim an opinion of the founding philosophy on modern finance capitalism (or, conversely, on modern social democracies) is a meaningless and fallacious appeal to tradition and a deified group of individuals. More importantly, there's no reason everything must remain beholden to 17th and 18th century political and philosophical ideals, be they real or mythical.

An older article explaining Scalia's view that you don't have a right to a new trial even with new evidence. Once you're convicted, case-closed motherf***er.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) I think adding new evidence that didn't exist is one thing. Asking reviewing courts to re-weigh evidence is another. That's not their role, nor should it be. It would make the entire system meaningless. Every case would immediately be appealed so that a different set of eyes would render a verdict. And then when the party that lost doesn't like the appellate courts' ruling, they'd appeal it to the SC and then on through the federal system. Asking courts to re-weigh a capital case that was heavily (entirely?) dependent on witness testimony where the witnesses have almost all recanted and claimed coercion doesn't seem like an especially heavy burden to place on the system avoid executing the wrong person.

btw here's the ruling from a year ago: http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pd...uling082410.pdf

btw the reaction comparisons between Casey Anthony and this are interesting. A lot of the facebookers who were absolutely sure she was guilty and were outraged that the jury 'let her off' defend the execution of Troy Davis by saying 'well he had his day in court!'

That sort of assumes an infallible justice system, though. How many people have been exonerated from death row thanks to DNA testing after decades of protesting their innocence and having people discover flaws and fabrications in the prosecutors' cases? Why is their testimony from 20 years ago enough to convict, even with all of the problems with eyewitness testimony and accusations of police coercion, but now their recantations are "suspect"?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 10:15 AM) So if the majority of the country wants to cut taxes and cut gov't spending the gov't is obligated to listen to what its' citizens want? Is that how it's working? More or less, in a Republic. Be sure to check those polls on taxes for the wealthy, there's overwhelming support! But my contention was with ss2k5's claims to why the US exists.

QUOTE (Cornelius Vanderbuilt @ Sep 22, 1890 -> 09:45 AM) No one is entitled to what someone else has earned. The fact that this is now considered some kind of horrible thing goes against everything the United States is supposed to be about. To hear the idea that people have money they aren't giving away being some sort of evil is just wrong. We aren't supposed to live in a society where we declare war against success and work ethic, but today those things have become a bad thing. War has been declared against the wealthy, or even moderately successful in this country.

Balta where's the part about strict adherence to laizze-faire capitalism?!!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 22, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) But only if it's a liberal wish right? Of course not, that's a silly thing to say.

Stepping back from the rhetoric for a second, here's a summary of the different views on our economic problems as seen by demand-side and then supply-side groups. http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/...r-weak-economy/

Hey guys don't ruin it, I want to see if the A's win it all and if the 2002 draft was a raging success!