Tiernan;1456993 wrote:Never admit to anything in a court of law, deny, deny, deny...you ain't gonna get in anymore trouble for lying.
Well, there is perjury, but compared to murder, I guess that wouldn't be first priority.
Belly35;1457126 wrote:So you believe that with all the victims statements, evidences that he is innocent? Because he is innocent until proven (what hasn't been proven that will be presented) he and his lawyer has the right to fraud the court system with lying about his plea
Why is it you would not except someone to be lying to you but you except lying in a court of law?
Belly, all this evidence you've just discussed hasn't been presented yet.
The default of an American citizen is innocence in light of the law. That is blatantly constitutional. Blatantly.
Now, there IS one means by which we can determine if someone is NOT innocent. Only one means. Again, as outlined in the Constitution. That is a court trial.
Consider it this way: Suppose we were to implement what you suggest. Do you believe that those in positions of authority will ALWAYS be so virtuous as to be able to be trusted to wield it scrupulously? It would seem that you trust the judiciary system of the government (now and in the future) more than I.
Belly35;1457147 wrote:Maybe just maybe the mentality of excepting lying as part of the process needs to end and truth, integrity be the order of the day.
What we have in today's technology is the science of proof, the digital image actions, and the means of medical evidence as document guilty plea. Lying about a plea is not a option ....in the future or even in this case
As crazy as it sounds, we've thought the same thing in the past, and we've convicted innocent people as a result. Again, that's also assuming that the government is trustworthy to never railroad anybody.