Canadian woman's conviction overturned for being too harsh

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

Perhaps postpartum psychosis should have been considered more by both juries.

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics justification of the Holocaust, and what have you.

You got it, CR90! 

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

Juries are just regular people, they're not experts on mental illness.

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 18, 2011, 04:42:27 PM

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

Juries are just regular people, they're not experts on mental illness.

You're right. BUT, they are charged with listening to every expert they defense presents and then deciding who's right and what's justifiable. They jury did that so it's not right to overturn their decision unless there is reasonable, solid new evidence to support it, which has not been presented.

I'll say one last thing

Incorrect, alas.

All of us just got CR90'd. 

Just fuck off CR90, until you can justify your slander that we justify the holocaust, you have nothing more to say to us.

Piss off, you hateful twat.

Technically, it's not slander. It's terrible libel. There is nothing that can justify the holocaust. Nothing.

Whatever, you people would justify genocide if it fit your world view.

Perhaps as a Christian, you should watch what you say about people who don't share your views. Glass houses and all that. All I know is, nobody ever proclaimed holy war in the name of a lack of gods.

On another note, why do so many Americans hold a jury's opinion in such high regard? In my humble and very uneducated opinion, it's a terrible idea overall. Why would you ever want a bunch of emotional common Joes(And Jessies, of course) who can be persuaded by a skilled speaker on your opponent's side to judge you in a court of law in lieu of a trained professional who is actually held up to some standard?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2011, 04:57:01 PM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 18, 2011, 04:42:27 PM

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

Juries are just regular people, they're not experts on mental illness.

You're right. BUT, they are charged with listening to every expert they defense presents and then deciding who's right and what's justifiable. They jury did that so it's not right to overturn their decision unless there is reasonable, solid new evidence to support it, which has not been presented.

Clearly it is right to overturn their decision, because the appeal process exists here in Canada, and also in the US. Are you suggesting that jury decisions shouldn't be appealed to higher courts without new evidence?

Judges are allowed to overturn a guilty verdict in cases where the jury may have been prejudice and ruled emotionally or for the purpose of revenge.  Given what the prosecution did, that was most likely the case:

For example, the prosecution displayed 58 graphic, colour autopsy photos even though the cause of death was not an issue as Effert had already admitted to strangling the infant, said Justice Peter Martin.

"This conduct, he said, "could only have made the jury's already difficult task — to decide the case fairly and dispassionately — more difficult."

It sounds to me the prosecution was attempting to get an emotional response from the jury, instead of having them consider relevant facts.

Why did the judge even allow the prosecution to do that?

I don't know.  It also doesn't say whether or not that was allowed in both trials.  If I were the judge, I would have ordered a new trial and had that "evidence" withheld (not sure if that can be done). 

What is at question is whether or not the woman was legally insane when the crime took place.  It appears the defense offered compelling evidence to support that she was, did the prosecution offer anything to counter that?  If they didn't, then yes I agree that it should be overturned. 

Now, if the prosecution DID offer evidence that she was not insane, that she knew the difference between right and wrong and instead committed this crime out of malice, then, and I can't believe I am saying this, I agree with CR90.  If credible evidence was offered by the prosecution to counter the claim of insanity by the defense OR the evidence submitted by the defense to support that claim was not not compelling, then no judge should overrule a jury's verdict.

Edit:  Let me clarify, I do not agree with the way CR90 is making his argument, he seems incapable of making any sort of valid point. I only mean that I would agree that the judge should not have overturned this particular verdict if those conditions were met.  That said I am still entering myself into Monster Fail just for having typed those words.

Trials with all their rules exist for the good reason that people should not be judged by public opinion.  Unless somebody wants to order up the trial transcripts with accompanying video if available, we are relying on hearsay and hearsay can be justifiably suspected to be biased.

CORRECTION: Some of you deny the holocoust, maybe as a joke, but it has happened, I apologize.

CORRECTION: Some of you deny the holocoust, maybe as a joke, but it has happened, I apologize.

No, that is not a correction. You've just repeated what you already said.

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 18, 2011, 05:44:51 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2011, 04:57:01 PM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 18, 2011, 04:42:27 PM

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

Juries are just regular people, they're not experts on mental illness.

You're right. BUT, they are charged with listening to every expert they defense presents and then deciding who's right and what's justifiable. They jury did that so it's not right to overturn their decision unless there is reasonable, solid new evidence to support it, which has not been presented.

Clearly it is right to overturn their decision, because the appeal process exists here in Canada, and also in the US. Are you suggesting that jury decisions shouldn't be appealed to higher courts without new evidence?

*looks around* re-read what I said, then ask again if yous till don't get it.

I don't know.  It also doesn't say whether or not that was allowed in both trials.  If I were the judge, I would have ordered a new trial and had that "evidence" withheld (not sure if that can be done). 

I can in America and it should have in Canada. It should have been declared a mistrial.

See this is what skimming articles gets you, you miss important sections of the article. *embarrassed*

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 20, 2011, 01:26:47 PM

CORRECTION: Some of you deny the holocoust, maybe as a joke, but it has happened, I apologize.

No, that is not a correction. You've just repeated what you already said.

No it's not, I originally said people here justify it, now I've said that some, in jest, have denied it. Reread it dammit.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on September 19, 2011, 07:10:35 AM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 18, 2011, 05:44:51 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on September 18, 2011, 04:57:01 PM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on September 18, 2011, 04:42:27 PM

I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.

Juries are just regular people, they're not experts on mental illness.

You're right. BUT, they are charged with listening to every expert they defense presents and then deciding who's right and what's justifiable. They jury did that so it's not right to overturn their decision unless there is reasonable, solid new evidence to support it, which has not been presented.

Clearly it is right to overturn their decision, because the appeal process exists here in Canada, and also in the US. Are you suggesting that jury decisions shouldn't be appealed to higher courts without new evidence?

*looks around* re-read what I said, then ask again if yous till don't get it.

Again, are you suggesting that the only way a decision reached by a jury should be allowed to be appealed is with new evidence? This isn't a question of what has happened, this is a question of what you feel ought to be.

This thread is further evidence that atheists and secularists can not lead a nation morally or justly.

Allahu Akbar

This thread is further evidence that atheists and secularists can not lead a nation morally or justly.

Allahu Akbar

Hmm, why don't you take a look at what countries driven by religion have done in the past and present then get back to us with your holier than thou answer to everything.

Quote from: IslamicMetalhead09 on September 20, 2011, 02:38:25 PM

This thread is further evidence that atheists and secularists can not lead a nation morally or justly.

Allahu Akbar

Hmm, why don't you take a look at what countries driven by religion have done in the past and present then get back to us with your holier than thou answer to everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
World War two was started by fairly secular super powers. As was World War one. If you'll note, the other top armed conflicts and war were by relatively secular nations, especially compared to the relative non-secular nations of the same time period.

Oh, boy! Another Epic Religion Troll!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll
World War two was started by fairly secular super powers. As was World War one. If you'll note, the other top armed conflicts and war were by relatively secular nations, especially compared to the relative non-secular nations of the same time period.

I will take those any day over the atrocities started by religion. Also- Germany may have been relatively secular but Hitler was very religious.

But this is off topic. How would you decide this case?

I will take those any day over the atrocities started by religion.

Like massive charity efforts, the basis of advanced education, and basic morality? Please review the five pillars of Islam, my close minded friend.

Also- Germany may have been relatively secular but Hitler was very religious.

No. Please research this topic more.

How would you decide this case?

By the laws of Allah, holy be his name.

It's just a trolltarp, Roost'. And an Islamic judge would, of course, have had the woman stoned in a public place.

None of those acts of violence were done in the name of secularism.

Quote from: rooster on September 20, 2011, 02:58:04 PM

I will take those any day over the atrocities started by religion.

Like massive charity efforts, the basis of advanced education, and basic morality? Please review the five pillars of Islam, my close minded friend.

Quote from: rooster on September 20, 2011, 02:58:04 PM

Also- Germany may have been relatively secular but Hitler was very religious.

No. Please research this topic more.

Quote

How would you decide this case?

By the laws of Allah, holy be his name.

Argh, A&A is right, but I can't help it. First- I have written a term paper on Islam, do not act like it is a glorious holy path. You are fooling no one except maybe maserati. Second- studying Hitler is my life (wiki is for newbs). Third- I'm not your friend, pal.

None of those acts of violence were done in the name of secularism.

The entire legal system of the West is in the name of secularism.

Argh, A&A is right, but I can't help it. First- I have written a term paper on Islam, do not act like it is a glorious holy path.

You may go to Western schools and study a Western's man's opinion of Islam, but when you let Allah in your heart you will know the truth.

Second- studying Hitler is my life (wiki is for newbs).

And yet you still attempt to boil down a great historical argument to an extreme. Study harder, perhaps?

Third- I'm not your friend, pal.

But you are my fellow brother or sister, created by Allah.

And yet you still attempt to boil down a great historical argument to an extreme.

That is not what I did at all.

You are only looking at the positive things religion has done, which is a huge logical fallacy, my buddy pal.

And I do not study with a bias. Humans are humans and no religion makes them holy or even correct. Not all Muslims even worship or interpret the Quran in the same way, so religion being the answer to anything is always problematic.

This is the most obvious troll we've had in quite a while.