Comments on: Craig Against the Machine http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Doc Rampage http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-173577 Doc Rampage Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:29:22 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/#comment-173577 These comparisons between Craig and Vitter are kind of annoying. Anyone should be able to see the difference between past, private behavior and on-going, public behavior. These comparisons between Craig and Vitter are kind of annoying. Anyone should be able to see the difference between past, private behavior and on-going, public behavior.

]]> By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-173523 Xrlq Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:47:45 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/#comment-173523 There is no "legalese" excuse for the fact that Radley claimed that the peeping charges were "thrown" out rather than bargained away before trial. If a judge had <i>thrown</i> the charge out, that would indicate that there was something genuinely wrong with it. In fact, it was just another bargaining chip, and a useful one to the prosecution at that. As to your legal theory, it sounds like you are confusing <i>res judicata</i> with the double jeopardy rule. I'm not aware of any legal doctrine standing for the proposition that a conviction for X entails an acquittal for ~X. That's also beside the point, as no one is arguing that Craig can/should be prosecuted peeping - unless, of course, he succeeds in getting his guilty plea set aside, only to learn to his and Radley's horror that the peeping charge was never really "thrown" out, after all. There is no “legalese” excuse for the fact that Radley claimed that the peeping charges were “thrown” out rather than bargained away before trial. If a judge had thrown the charge out, that would indicate that there was something genuinely wrong with it. In fact, it was just another bargaining chip, and a useful one to the prosecution at that.

As to your legal theory, it sounds like you are confusing res judicata with the double jeopardy rule. I’m not aware of any legal doctrine standing for the proposition that a conviction for X entails an acquittal for ~X. That’s also beside the point, as no one is arguing that Craig can/should be prosecuted peeping – unless, of course, he succeeds in getting his guilty plea set aside, only to learn to his and Radley’s horror that the peeping charge was never really “thrown” out, after all.

]]> By: nk http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-173224 nk Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:14:22 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2007/09/01/craig-against-the-machine/#comment-173224 I believe that Radley has the "legalese" right this time. A conviction, whether by finding or plea, is an acquittal of all other crimes which could be charged in that transaction. Beldar seems to imply that a plea of guilty is an admission to every allegation in the police report and every piece of evidence the prosecution might present but the law says the exact opposite. Only those facts which support the elements of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty are deemed admitted and the rest are for legal purposes "never happened". I believe that Radley has the “legalese” right this time. A conviction, whether by finding or plea, is an acquittal of all other crimes which could be charged in that transaction. Beldar seems to imply that a plea of guilty is an admission to every allegation in the police report and every piece of evidence the prosecution might present but the law says the exact opposite. Only those facts which support the elements of the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty are deemed admitted and the rest are for legal purposes “never happened”.

]]>