not proven

I would find it impossible to describe the new America of your youthful dreams as anything but fascist. Socialism certainly doesn't figure in the society you described, unless you just missed out the part where the workers had control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.


BTW, what has this to do with the subject under discussion, i.e. the Scottish "not proven" verdict?

[Foxx]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
I would find it impossible to describe the new America of your youthful dreams as anything but fascist. Socialism certainly doesn't figure in the society you described, unless you just missed out the part where the workers had control over the means of production, distribution and exchange.


BTW, what has this to do with the subject under discussion, i.e. the Scottish "not proven" verdict?

Sorry, Neil, for being off topic and longwinded, but I was directing a supporting comment at your comment as to the end goal of the Scottish legal system, which is for an accused person to be given a fair trial, which only only came about after a long evolution in politics, and that the right to a fair and speedy trial is frequently one of the first injustice of any type of authoritarian system.

I also meant to point the fact that many young people frequently sign on to various types of socialist thought thinking them grand and good hearted visions of a better world only to discover in middle age that many of the legalism and forms of the government of their youth had had much merit...

True enough... dare I mention Guantanamo Bay here?

[Foxx]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
True enough... dare I mention Guantanamo Bay here?

(Foxx laughing:-)...Neil, you got me again! Ouch! You got shot me again, pard! (Foxx falling to the ground:-)

[heathen]

I am a stauch socialist like 3/4 of my european peers and i find nothing wrong with redistribution of wealth among workers, publicly owned companies , high wages due to the fact we dont have to prostitute ourselves for them unlike right wing capitalists.
in britian the highest taxed group are the middle class
the large proprtion of the rich and hugely rich have the lowest tax to pay or they will move their companies abroad its disgusting.
i look down on right wingers like bush and his cronies as filth cause thats wehat they are.

Whenever I see someone writing about "redistribution" I know what he really means is he believes in redistributing my earnings from my pocket into his.

All taxation is redistributive. There's no escaping that. Society, if it is to be civilised, has a duty to care for those who are unable to care for themselves and any civilised person would gladly accept this duty of care. I have no problem with things like old age pensions, disability benefits, unemployment benefits, free medical care for all, etc. Where I do have problems is when people start thinking the taxation system should be used to level out everybody's incomes.

What happens when taxation is used to redistribute wealth? Some people work at high status jobs and earn good money, while others don't. Pretty soon the high earners see they are not deriving any financial benefit from their efforts, and they also see other people living as well as they do without actually doing anything to earn that lifestyle. The high earners get scunnered and either give up their jobs and start living off the efforts of others, or they emigrate to somewhere where they can enjoy the fruits of their own labours. Either way, the domestic economy suffers.

Taxation should be used to pay for the functioning of government, including state-funded benefits. It should not be used to take money away from the "haves" with the express aim or redistributing it to the "have nots". That way is guaranteed to ensure that everyone becomes a "have not".

If anyone wants to debate this subject, I suggest we open a new thread and discuss it under a suitable heading rather than discuss it under a title which has nothing to do with the topic.

[lb_of_Netherby]

Can a verdict of "not proven" be overturned to "not guilty" if new evidence supports the innocence of the accused? Or would the effort be considered frivolus since technically no sentence of punishment was delivered?

Compared to "proven" and "not proven," I think "guilty" and "not guilty" sound like the a big-headed attempt to make the courts sound more omnipotent and righteous than they really are...although I doubt that is how they were intended.

BTW, I live pretty close to Kansas. The idea of moving the capital of the US this way was really entertaining!
lol!
Most of us VERY MUCH prefer the peace and quiet out here on the plains.

Thanks everyone for the replies!