Comments on: It Ain’t Over ‘Til The Fat Lady Votes

By: Opining Online » “A Permanent State Of Election”

Opining Online » “A Permanent State Of Election” — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:37:24 +0000

[...] However, one thing I am disgusted with is blind partisanship and I haven’t really seen a lot written about that. The fact that Coakley — arguably the worst senate candidate from any state in decades — got as many votes as she did can only (in my mind) attributed to a willful blindness. See here. [...]

By: Donna B.

Donna B. — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 06:15:16 +0000

CGHill – since I asked for ‘splaining I’ve had time to think, and what I think is the “somewhere in the middle” applies to everything but determination of guilt or innocence in a trial.

It’s probably very applicable in civil cases.

But I do like characterizing Coakley as a “carriage of misjustice”!

By: CGHill

CGHill — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:52:09 +0000

“Somewhere in the middle,” to me, sounds like “Well, yeah, we did execute six people who turned out to be innocent, but hey, that’s less than X percent,” where X is nonzero.

In other words, this is, as Sam Goldwyn probably didn’t say, “a carriage of misjustice.”

By: pacific_waters

pacific_waters — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:27:55 +0000

It’s not a tough question for me. Any prosecutor who doubts or knowingly prosecutes and innocent man or fails to fight for there release upon escapulatory evidence being found should be disbarred.

By: Donna B.

Donna B. — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:21:13 +0000

I’ve never thought of justice as being somewhere in the middle. ‘Splain more, please?

By: Bryan C.

Bryan C. — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:34:37 +0000

“So, what’s the moral status of advocating that someone who is likely innocent remain in prison? It’s a tough question.”
The power of the State, as vested in the prosecutor/solicitor is huge. It contains discretion in who is criminally prosecuted, what plea bargains are offered/accepted, and what sentencing is sought by the people of the state. It’s certainly not something to take lightly, and it can certainly be abused.

Nevertheless, some attorneys would say that the “adversarial system” we have in place is designed to function best when the Plaintiff (the State in criminal cases) seeks their maximum goal and the Defendant seeks their opposing maximum goal, with the result (justice) being somewhere in the middle. This may be true to a certain extent. To the extent that it is a “moral question”… as long as each side has a good faith basis for their position, I think everyone is on solid moral footing.

The moral problems arise when one side goes from advocating to a “win at all costs” mentality, leaving behind the good faith basis for their positions.

By: Red Sox Nation

Red Sox Nation — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:02:51 +0000

Scott Brown is on the verge of pulling off an upset of staggering proportions.Coakely has a problem, and it starts with “C” and ends with “oakely”. When you’re running for anything in MA, don’t call Curt Schilling “another Yankees fan”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNpcMHwOa8&feature=player_embedded

By: gcotharn

gcotharn — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:01:19 +0000

You’ve hit on a really, really good point. IMO, the lack of concern for morality has it’s genesis in a belief that truth doesn’t exist. If “truth” is mere opinion: anything goes.

IMO, what’s also missing with the anything goes people is a sense of the complexity of life. Think of the Butterfly Effect. If our actions might set off powerful unknown consequences at the back end, then we want our actions to be moral at the front end. The anything goes people don’t think life is that complex. They think they can control things. They believe in simple equations: vote for Coakley, “the nation is better off when Democrats are in power” (Terry McAuliffe’s rationale/selling point). They believe moral choices are rumors which are handy for keeping the saps in line.