Raj Feridun wrote:

> >It is YOU (don't snip your own post) who say we cannot label people criminals without
> >even the CHANCE to defend themselves. Those "criminals" had none.
>
> I do think you're being just a bit extreme here. I never said that
> killing oneself exonerates them of crimes nor does the justice system
> in the USA. It doesn't automatically make them guilty either.
>
> However, considering that the most severe possible punishment in the
> US judicial system is the death penalty such suicides do tend to make
> guilt or innocence a moot issue.

But your labeling them "criminals" without being properly judged so, when you claim we
cannot, is not a moot issue, even when considering Hitler, 9-11 hijackers, or the boys at
Columbine.

Is it all right to decide and declare people are criminals without the chance to "properly
defend themselves", or not?

> >If even YOU, who are so "perfectly happy" with the current system, are allowed to label
> >people criminals (who deserved death) without trial, why should anyone else be
> >restricted?
>
> Now you're talking about freedom of speech which is another wonderful
> right I fully support. As an American I'm allowed to label anyone
> anything I like.

You mean, someone living under the protection of a Constitution or law enforcement which
allows it, not always true everywhere. It is you who should be careful where you live or
travel, because Japan for one, does not protect their own Constitution, which in theory,
grants their citizens even more rights than the US grants theirs. Lawyers in Japan could
and should be having a field day, and I do not know why they do not. Perhaps they, like you
are "perfectly happy" with the gross abuses of their legal system, and choose not to even
say anything about it or hold it responsible for itself.

Then why do you tell me not to label people criminals (unless my concept of criminal such
as Hitler or suicide hijacker, agrees with yours)? Is that just your exercise of freedom as
well?

> >Just pray crime or false accusation never involves you. I would be confident under my
> >own system, as criminal or victim.
>
> I'm confident I could defend myself against false accusations

Then you who are so concerned about false rape allegations (or was it necojeff) should pray
you are never accused of rape, even in the US.

> and for my part I do my best to stay "clean".

That's you. What of most men who are not as clean living as you, who might make the stupid
yet common decision to have casual sex with a woman, and could legally (that is, under the
current system) be convicted of rape or other assault on what would amount to her
allegation alone, even years later?

Naturally, I will never support most of their views or actions, but their concerns are
PERFECTLY valid:

http://www.accused.com/
http://www.accused.com/overview/rape.html

You see no need for better protections, even for that? Of course you and most other readers
still don't get it, but my system would protect against that as well, even while being
harder on criminals.

> I'm always in favor of more funding for law enforcement.

Then why not simply say so, instead of claiming to be "PERFECTLY HAPPY" with "reality", and
telling me to "LIVE WITH IT", "DEAL WITH IT" and (was it you or necojeff) suggesting I go
to some totalitarian state if I could not?

> This is PRECISELY because I do not fault the system for the bad things that
> happen.

Then why not voice your disagreement with the legality or humanity of the death penalty, or
your concern for the need for more law enforcement resources, even under the current
system? Why don't you acknowledge that there are ways to improve the system, using existing
legal means, instead of telling people to simply "Live with it" "Deal with it", or perhaps
get out of the country and live in a totalitarian state?