Eric Takabayashi <etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote:

>> Uh, where is it written that a trial is required? Certainly, not all
>> criminals or victims desire it.

> It is you and others here, who criticize my views, who ask how we are supposed to
> know.

Really, I suppose it would be relatively EASY to know whether a victim
or a criminal desired a trial.

> A full length trial, to examine all available evidence, including what may
> have been unknown or withheld beforehand, is better than say, a common patrol cop
> wrongly letting people go in about five minutes.

Only several things wrong with that; 
1) as stated, a trial is not a requirement. it's a right
2) you have stated you want no protections for the accused. clearly this
   has resulted in as many abuses as criminals could possibly inflict,
   historically.
3) REQUIRING a trial for each crime would cost tremendously more in
   of jails, cops, judges, jurors and their time, etc., than we can
   possibly afford.

Most stringent objection, theoretically, is the second. You again feel
that to be accused is to be guilty. That's simply wrong in outlook, and
wrong in fact.

Mike