1 2 3 4
Rushtown wrote on 24 Apr 2004: That's a value judgment I don't want to make.

Given the society you live in, that's not a "value judgment." Those that conform to the dominant behaviour including manifested thought or desires are always treated better.

Rubbish. I know "gay" people who've been treated
as well as anyone, and who have earned and achieved success, wealth, and acclaim.

Michael West
I'm sure you've seen Jordy Chandler's deposition over at the Smoking Gun: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjcivil1.html

It surprised me that the minor was the plaintiff. I thought that the State was the plaintiff in criminal matters, and I expected the minor to be called the complainant.
I looked up the definition of "plaintiff" at

n. the party who initiates a lawsuit by filing a complaint with the clerk of the court against the defendant(s) demanding damages, performance and/or court determination of rights.

Does anyone have further information about the State's role as plaintiff? Would the terminology have been different in different states? Thank you for your time.

Mike Bandy
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
What makes me feel you are omitting something, as you said "Robert Fisk" did, in another post?
I was merely pointing out to the original poster that etymology is not always a reliable guide to current usage, and if you look at words from a purely etymological point of view, what you get will appear illogical and contradictory.
If one is looking purely for etymological logic and consistency then

if
"homosexual" means someone sexually attracted to someone of the same sex then
a person sexually attracted to young children should be described as "paedosexual".
If "paedophile" means someone sexually attracted to young children then "negrophile" means...
Or, as they say in the classics.
Vegetarians eat vegetables
Watch out for humanitarians.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
If someone's mental condition is such that he cannot avoid ... an acquittal using the defense of mental disease or defect.

Before wondering where he should wind up, will you allow him a trial? Even if you don't appreciate his talents as a performer, you'll agree he is innocent until proven guilty, tra la, tra la.

I was responding to someone who posited a situation in which Jackson had done what he is accused of and had raised a defense based on his mental condition. It was what we attorneys are pleased to call a "hypothetical." If he has violated the law but is mentally ill, he should be institutionalized and treated, not imprisoned. If he's violated no laws, mentally ill or not, he should be acquitted. In fact, if he's violated no laws he shouldn't have been indicated and shouldn't be tried. I hope those "if"s make it clear that I'm hypothesizing each premise.
I don't know what he has or hasn't done, and I doubt that I am alone in that.

Bob Lieblich
Air flowing through an open mind
Before wondering where he should wind up, will you allow ... he is innocent until proven guilty, tra la, tra la.

Well, not really. "Innocent 'til proven guilty" is a legal concept allocating the burden of proof. That is, in the ... that I have to presume him innocent etc. I don't unless I'm a judge or juror, and I am neither.

IAWTP. (Well, most of it.) Which, given that Andrew (Rushtown) Smyth wrote it, is worthy of comment. "Innocent until proven guilty" is subject to rhetorical abuse. No one will even prove OJ Simpson criminally responsible (i.e., guilty) in the murder of Nicole and Ron (the state gets but one bite at that apple), but my opinion is that he's guilty as hell (in the lay sense of that phrase), and was from the moment he killed them, and should be rotting in prison, possibly on death row.
As for presuming Michael Jackson guilty, I repeat that I don't know the case well enough to form an opinion myself. I suppose I won't be able to avoid it, so eventually, as with OJ, I'll reach a conclusion one way or the other. This being AUE, I'll probably find an occasion to inflict it on you all (not y'all). My apologies in advance.

Bob Lieblich
Still agnostic
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
re dancing Jacko:
I don't know what he has or hasn't done, and I doubt that I am alone in that.

Ah, but I don't know what you have or haven't done either, and I doubt that I'm alone in that, Judge Let-them-rot-in-prison Lieblich!
Charles Riggs
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
In fact, if he's violated no laws he shouldn't have been indicated and shouldn't be tried.

But surely it's reasonable that somebody should be indicted and tried even if he's violated no law? Appearing to a Grand Jury to have a case to answer can happen to an innocent man under English-type law, else why bother with a trial?
(Which would-be politician proudly claimed "Never indicted"?)

Mike.