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

>> > 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.

> Why do you now downplay the necessity of trial, to properly know all that can be
> known?

Actually, I'm asking you why you so adamantly refuse to recognize the
VICTIM'S rights in that regard, though you pretend that that's your
motivation for all your other objections to the legal system.

Could you please answer that?

>> > 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

> So it is now. But we are not necessarily talking about things as they are right now.

So you obligate everyone to undergo a trial process, whether or not they
have been accused of something?

>> 2) you have stated you want no protections for the accused.

> Investigation and trial are excellent protections,

The investigation happens whether or not there's a trial.

This should be obvious to you.

> How many totalitarian police states as I am constantly accused of promoting, have
> protections such as these? 

Most of them; they are very good at putting those protections into
writing.

>>    has resulted in as many abuses as criminals could possibly inflict,
>>    historically.

> Luckily, any such system is not what I am talking about.

Right; the magic fairy dust system.

>> 3) REQUIRING a trial for each crime

> I do not require a trial for each crime.

You just said that above.

Will you make up your mind, please?

> I am simply asking, in line with your own posts, how we are supposed to "know" as much
> as we can, without a trial, or at least a proper investigation.

Why do we need to "know"?

Seriously, if all parties agree to something, what point is being served
by your proposals?

>>    of jails, cops, judges, jurors and their time, etc., than we can
>>    possibly afford.

> Luckily I do not demand all cases be tried.

Then why did you say you do in the above?


>> Most stringent objection, theoretically, is the second. You again feel
>> that to be accused is to be guilty.

> No, criminals are guilty. 

And the discussion is about deciding WHO is a criminal. 

You seem to believe that merely being accused makes one a criminal.  

>> That's simply wrong in outlook, and wrong in fact.

> Yes, it is, which is why it is not what I believe.

Then you should not post to that effect.

Mike