Comments on: If Joe Arpaio Says Your Guilty, That’s Good Enough For Us http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:41:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: PaleRider http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-31101 PaleRider Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:03:46 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-31101 Arpaio is a criminal. He will be convicted of his crimes. He is NOT the Teflon Don. We are coming for you Joe and your Henchmen as well. I hope you will enjoy the Federal Pen. I know allot of people are waiting to get to have a talk with you, up close and personal and I know you won't leave happy. Arpaio is a criminal. He will be convicted of his crimes. He is NOT the Teflon Don. We are coming for you Joe and your Henchmen as well. I hope you will enjoy the Federal Pen. I know allot of people are waiting to get to have a talk with you, up close and personal and I know you won’t leave happy.

]]> By: Tai http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30718 Tai Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:08:02 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30718 What does this have to do with Arpaio? It's the judge who has decided this, not the Sheriff. The cops just bring the people they think are guilty to the court system and let them handle it from there on out. I think you're letting your dislike of Arpaio cloud your rationality. What does this have to do with Arpaio?
It’s the judge who has decided this, not the Sheriff.
The cops just bring the people they think are guilty to the court system and let them handle it from there on out. I think you’re letting your dislike of Arpaio cloud your rationality.

]]> By: O Bloody Hell http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30705 O Bloody Hell Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:55:34 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30705 > <i>You’re a little off base here Warren, at least from a historical perspective. While the text appears clear, we’ve never in our history granted an absolute right to a jury trial in the country, and routinely deny them for minor offences.</i> Mainly because people waive them, usually. Even in minor offenses, you generally have the right, if there is <i>any chance of incarceration</i> (which appears to be the dividing point on "criminal prosecutions"), to demand a jury trial. The state tends to try and throw the book at you, then, though, if you piss them off by doing so. And considering the number of total BS laws on the books, that's hardly trivial. > You’re a little off base here Warren, at least from a historical perspective. While the text appears clear, we’ve never in our history granted an absolute right to a jury trial in the country, and routinely deny them for minor offences.

Mainly because people waive them, usually. Even in minor offenses, you generally have the right, if there is any chance of incarceration (which appears to be the dividing point on “criminal prosecutions”), to demand a jury trial. The state tends to try and throw the book at you, then, though, if you piss them off by doing so. And considering the number of total BS laws on the books, that’s hardly trivial.

]]> By: James2 http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30686 James2 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:19:00 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30686 You're a little off base here Warren, at least from a historical perspective. While the text appears clear, we've never in our history granted an absolute right to a jury trial in the country, and routinely deny them for minor offences. You’re a little off base here Warren, at least from a historical perspective. While the text appears clear, we’ve never in our history granted an absolute right to a jury trial in the country, and routinely deny them for minor offences.

]]> By: Dr. T http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30679 Dr. T Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:36:34 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30679 "But if intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution was treason, we’d have to put about 400 CongressFolk and 98 Senators in jail!..." And President Obama, five or six of the Supreme Court Justices, and most federal judges. “But if intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution was treason, we’d have to put about 400 CongressFolk and 98 Senators in jail!…”

And President Obama, five or six of the Supreme Court Justices, and most federal judges.

]]> By: Henry Bowman http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30669 Henry Bowman Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:18:00 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30669 CT_Yankee writes <blockquote>If intentionally violating the Constitution is treason, a bigger crime than shoplifting, the Judge should be serving more time than the woman. Isn’t the normal punishment for treason “life in front of the firing squad”?</blockquote> But if intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution was treason, we'd have to put about 400 CongressFolk and 98 Senators in jail! Then what would we do? The sheeple would be lost! CT_Yankee writes

If intentionally violating the Constitution is treason, a bigger crime than shoplifting, the Judge should be serving more time than the woman. Isn’t the normal punishment for treason “life in front of the firing squad”?

But if intentionally violating the U.S. Constitution was treason, we’d have to put about 400 CongressFolk and 98 Senators in jail! Then what would we do? The sheeple would be lost!

]]> By: CT_Yankee http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30666 CT_Yankee Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:51:57 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30666 If intentionally violating the Constitution is treason, a bigger crime than shoplifting, the Judge should be serving more time than the woman. Isn't the normal punishment for treason "life in front of the firing squad"? If intentionally violating the Constitution is treason, a bigger crime than shoplifting, the Judge should be serving more time than the woman. Isn’t the normal punishment for treason “life in front of the firing squad”?

]]> By: mahtso http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30664 mahtso Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:08:51 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30664 I am little confused as to how Sheriff Arpaio has anything to do with the case at issue. Nevertheless, the 6th Amendment did not create a right to a jury trial, but rather merely preserved the existing right(s). The Arizona Constitution has one provision that mirrors the 6th A, and also one that, as the Courts interpret it, allows jury trials when the penalty is greater than 6 months (even if it is not a crime that qualified when the Az Const was adopted). Jerry, there are a number of cases that discuss this limit, including DUI cases in Az and the case Coyote is refering to, which is now posted at the Az Court's website. (For those who care to know: shoplifting was found to be the analog of larceny, which was eligible for a jury trial at the time the Az Const was adopted, and so, for now, you are entitled to a jury trial for shoplifitng in Az.) I am little confused as to how Sheriff Arpaio has anything to do with the case at issue.

Nevertheless, the 6th Amendment did not create a right to a jury trial, but rather merely preserved the existing right(s). The Arizona Constitution has one provision that mirrors the 6th A, and also one that, as the Courts interpret it, allows jury trials when the penalty is greater than 6 months (even if it is not a crime that qualified when the Az Const was adopted).

Jerry, there are a number of cases that discuss this limit, including DUI cases in Az and the case Coyote is refering to, which is now posted at the Az Court’s website. (For those who care to know: shoplifting was found to be the analog of larceny, which was eligible for a jury trial at the time the Az Const was adopted, and so, for now, you are entitled to a jury trial for shoplifitng in Az.)

]]> By: Jerry http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30662 Jerry Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:46:44 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30662 Not surprising, they already do this in DUI cases in lots of jurisdictions and there are a whole lot more penalties associated with that. But I'm with Rick C above, all criminal prosecutions, never read anywhere about exclusions because of the amount time you might do. Not surprising, they already do this in DUI cases in lots of jurisdictions and there are a whole lot more penalties associated with that. But I’m with Rick C above, all criminal prosecutions, never read anywhere about exclusions because of the amount time you might do.

]]> By: Methinks http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/12/if-joe-arpaio-says-your-guilty-thats-good-enough-for-us.html/comment-page-1#comment-30658 Methinks Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:08:37 +0000 http://www.coyoteblog.com/?p=9954#comment-30658 Okay, I agree with you. However, this woman is probably guilty if she wants a group of people who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty to decide her fate. That's the rule of thumb among lawyers - bench trial if you're innocent and jury trial if you're guilty. Okay, I agree with you. However, this woman is probably guilty if she wants a group of people who couldn’t figure out how to get out of jury duty to decide her fate. That’s the rule of thumb among lawyers – bench trial if you’re innocent and jury trial if you’re guilty.

]]>