bojanglefunk
Well-known member
"Then, on top of that, you keep saying "how can you believe anything Zimmerman says?" Again, an unbelievably dangerous notion. To require Zimmerman to prove any of his actions to a jury goes against the very foundation of our system. As I said in an earlier post, I am very thankful we live in a country where the government has to prove guilt. I would think you would agree."
I completely agree with this. Of course the burden of proof is on the side of the government.
However when you admit to a crime and are a defense where the only evidence is your word, if your word can proven unreliable then the defense falls apart.
"You are entitled to your opinions, of course. I, obviously, vehemently disagree. This is not a personal attack, but I agree with bojangle. I truly hope you never serve on a criminal jury based upon your opinions of the system."
We basically have one issue of disagreement and it is about a tiny, tiny minority of cases where an affirmative defense is possible and used. It's not about all cases and it's dishonest that it is.
There is one group of cases where I couldn't be on the jury- capital cases. I could never in good conscience vote for the death penalty.
But it isn't a tiny issue- the same reason you can't use it without the affirmative defense is the same reason you can't use it WITH the affirmative defense. Add the following to my hypothetical "given the circumstantial evidence of the murder, the only defense I have is my word and saying 'I didn't do it'" and you are logically in the same place.