Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
Say, aren't you that MANIAC on rec.scuba who has spent half his life railing against Cochran dive computers? >Subject: Re: 2nd Message C.J. & legal correction >Sent: 6/27/96 7:36 PM >Received: 6/28/96 9:24 PM >From: Reef Fish, RFLNG@CL*.ED* >To: John W. Chluski, undersea@GA*.NE* >CC: cavers@GE*.CO* > Tech Diver, techdiver@terra.net > >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:49:12 -0400, undersea@ga*.ne* (John W. Chluski) says, > >> Good to see that this mess has cleared up. Bad for everyone. > >Indeed. But as in all bad thing (such as a diving fatality or accident) >we should LEARN something good or useful from it, I hope. > > >> A small correction is in order: the history of development of a country's >> judicial system determines the presumption of guilt. Two basic systems, >> Napoleonic and English Common Law, characterize most, but not all, of >> industrialized and democratic countries. Under Napoleonic legal systems >> when charged you are GUILTY UNTIL proven INNOCENT. It is under English >> Common Law that if charged, you are INNOCENT UNTIL proven GUILTY. > >Thanks for posting this -- so I don't have to write it myself! :-) >I received another email saying the same thing, virtually verbatim. > >Thanks to all who pointed out this more technical aspects of jurisprudence. >I am just a Reef Fish, ya know. Not a shark! <G> > > >> Generally, countries with a strong Catholic influence tend to be Napoleonic >> and countries that went the way of the Reformation tend to be ECL. > >Then there's Islamic law, Jewish law, ... not to mention George's WKPP >Law ;-) as in > >gmiiii>Mexico is a very easy place to do things if you do them right, a >concept >gmiiii>that is totally foreign to guys like Jones. I'd like to see them just >gmiiii>go ahead and shoot this parasite, rather than take up jail space. > >I am SURELY GLAD that George wasn't in charge! He would have MURDERED >Chuck Jones, if not the other five cavers! Talk about SAFETY in George's >cave operation <G> -- 6 dead cavers in one day is not too safe! :-) > >Is REVIVING cavers from having been shot dead in part of George's video? > >Okay, enough of that. But if George is going to dish it out, he should >at least be held RESPONSIBILITY for what he said. > > > < ... John's tales of his speeding charges in Mex. elided ... > > >Case (1): ... official seemed satisfied with a couple of $30 bills ... >Case (2): ... Unfortunately for the officers and fortunately for me, > they drove so recklessly fast that they lost us. ... > >In most streets in Czm, especially the downtown area of Av. Rafael Melgar, >you can't drive fast enough to break any speed limit. :) > ------------------------- > >More seriously, the situation Chuck and his group of 6 in the archeological >expedition faced was POTENTIALLY very serious, under the laws there: > >>>in Mexican Law, if charged, you are GUILTY UNTIL proven INNOCENT. > >I KNOW (in great details, and so does Chuck) of a case in which a dive >shop operator was charged of an alleged crime, and said person spent >OVER A YEAR in jail BEFORE he was sentenced (declared guilty or innocent). > >Remember THAT! > >And there were no lawyers arguing the case, or any jury. The Judge >decided the guilt or innocence of a defendant all by himself! > > >Since this reply is to a posting mostly about laws, most people don't know >that in THIS COUNTRY, to convict a defendant, the plaintiff must show >(depending on the type of courts and alleged crimes), that the defendant >is GUILTY by one of these legal standards (precise legal wording): > >1. preponderance of the evidence (as in People's Court on TV) >2. clear and convincing evidence >3. clear, unequivocal, and convincing >4. beyond a reasonable doubt (as in O.J. trial, criminal court) > >The burden of proof lies with the PLAINTIFF. > >Chuck et al, OTOH, had to convince the judge that they were INNOCENT! >The burden of proof was on the DEFENDANT. > >There's nothing to joke about (or might light of) in Chuck Jone's >situation given the (fwd) first posted Message of his. > >The quick dropping of all charges and innocence verdict in that case, as >reported in his 2nd Message, must have been the equivalent that they have >proven to the judge BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that they were INNOCENT, >as Chuck indicated in his first message. > >What do you need to do IF you want to dive the cenotes in Cozumel? Do >you need to apply for a licence (remember the Mayan treasures ;) you >may accidentally damage them, ya know? ), etc. I'll pass on other >pertinent info when I hear more from Chuck. He IS an official on some >of these matters, IN COZUMEL! > >Meanwhile, dive safely, > >-- Bob. > >P.S. I am NEITHER a caver, nor a techdiver. I am the Reef Fish! >-- >Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@terra.net'. >Send subscription/archive requests to `techdiver-request@terra.net'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]