On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:47:40 +0900, Eric Takabayashi
<etakajp@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

>> What court of law will convict a dead person?

>Irrelevant. Hitler, suicide hijackers (if any) and the boys of Columbine have not had a chance
>to properly defend themselves the way you say is required before labeling someone a criminal.

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

In your examples I believe voluntarily exiting the planet pretty much
eliminates one's right to such a defense. If they cared about their
legacy they would have stuck around long enough to take see to it's
handling.

>> It's alright for individuals to think any way about anything they
>> like. That's freedom.

>Freedom of thought is guaranteed by the Japanese Constitution for Japanese citizens. Is it
>guaranteed for foreigners or those who live in the US?

I would have to guess no. I don't know for sure. At any rate I can
return to my own country should it become an issue that concerns me
sufficiently. In my passport right on the front cover it does say:

The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests
all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United
States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of
need to give all lawful aid and protection.

>You also claimed I cannot label people criminals without them having a proper chance to defend
>themselves, but you apparently can. Why so?

I voiced my own personal objection. I doubt I said you were not
legally permitted to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong.

>> >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)?

>> Because I am as free to do so as you are to label.

>Ah. So you were being that simple. Then the answer to you saying I can't (while you can) label
>people criminals without them having the chance to properly defend themselves, is "That's
>bullshit."

You can object to anything I say. I can voice my own opinions in
return. Freedom's great, isn't it?

>> I am thankful, for the thousandth time, and I do hope I never face
>> such a nightmare.

>Then you should not be so confident in your ability to defend yourself if "such a nightmare"
>happens. Japanese I know are also confident until something befalls them. One man went so far
>as to say he wanted a gun (illegal of course) after his house was ransacked during a trip. It
>was I who tried to dissuade him.

Good dissuasion. I'm more confident of my ability to avoid such
"nightmares" than I am of my ability to defend myself should one
occur.

>> >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?

>> I said I do my best.

>"That's you." "What of most men who are not as clean living as you," who can easily be
>victimized by the system AS IT EXISTS, NOT because of human imperfection, but because that is
>how the system has set it up?

Desperate times call for desparate measures. Any such actions bear a
risk that one takes. Perhaps I'm not abstaining so much out of "clean
living" as I am out of fear of the consequences.

>> >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

>> Interesting.

>And as far as I can see, true.

It's very troubling.

>What should be done about this tragedy?

I wish I had the answer. False claims are a problem of mental illness
in the claimants. How DO we fix that??

>The only thing I disagree with are their figures for false accusation, and their agenda. They
>are not interested in balance, or also improving the system to apprehend the real criminals who
>give the falsely accused a bad name, they are only interested in defending people against
>charges of abuse or rape.

How much do you actually know about the group that runs this site?
What if they're actually rapists trying to change the laws to make it
easier to commit their crimes?

>I concern myself with real criminals and victims, but those same improvements to know what
>really happened, would also serve to protect the falsely and mistakenly accused and prevent it
>all in the first place.

Sometimes it is impossible to find out what "really happened".

>> No, I don't get it. Your system seemed to be one step above a police
>> state. That's not my bag.

>If we had a system to know what really happened, people wouldn't be falsely or mistakenly
>accused, either. It's that simple.

See above.

>Woman: "He raped me!"
>Cop: "No, lady, he did not. Here is the conclusive evidence that at the time of the incident
>you claim, he was sleeping in his own home. We also see that you were also sleeping in your own
>home at the time of the incident you claim. Were you mistaken in any of the details, or are you
>telling a lie?"

There's nothing stopping the accused's attorney from making the very
same statement. I much prefer this to a police state.

>"I'd like to withdraw my report."

Or, Judge: "case dismissed"

>Man: "I don't know what you're talking about!"
>Cop: "Here, sir, is the evidence that it was indeed you who purchased an unregistered firearm
>without a license, and used said firearm at the time in question to rob that bank. In addition
>to bank surveillance cameras, here is evidence of you putting on the hat and sunglasses before
>entering. Please observe no one else inside or outside was so dressed. And here are the clothes
>you discarded, found at the place you discarded them, with your DNA on them."

This is another issue entirely but I am in favor of stringent gun
control.

>"I'd like to call my lawyer and plead guilty."

>Why can't you see that?

The police exist to enforce the law not arbitrate it. It wouldn't
work. Some cops are abusive enough as it is with the power they have.
They are law ENFORCEMENT.