根據第五條修正案的規定,被告不能作為證人,也不能利用被告的言論為被告自己定罪,所以被告說話可以盡可能少或拒絕回答問題,以免對自己不利。修正案是這樣陳述的:“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : What you claimed here was wrong, period.
雅美之途 發表評論於
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : How can you say that "英語一句隻有一個主語,增加主語必須用分句、分號或句號。"? Please read this sentence that I copied from the web, there were certainly two subjects, one for the first half and another one for the second half of the sentence:
"As Donald Trump's campaign reels over tapes of the presidential candidate's sexually aggressive comments about women in 2005, the Republican nominee now trails Hillary Clinton by double digits among likely voters, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. "
Please add "a" here. Thanks. 我說“一句一個主語”有點不準確,但多個主語在同一句時確實需要用分句(clause)或者分號,不能逗號到底。
文以止戈 發表評論於
好文章!
雅美之途 發表評論於
Although I welcome diverse messages for the discussions here, but those posts with insulting words, phrases or sentences will be deleted immediately. I am very tolerant person. It's my obligation to clean up my backyard.
阿留 發表評論於
Your English needs improvement. : ) You cannot use so many "," as you do in Chinese. Just a friendly reminder to save the reviewers/editors more time in the future.
雅美之途 發表評論於
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : What you said here was not right at all: "英語一句隻有一個主語,增加主語必須用分句、分號或句號。"
I have given you a real example below. :) So clearly you haven't read it.
One cannot propose to enjail his/her political opponent only because of the differences in political views. However, one could propose to prosecute that person because of his/her crime. In this debate, it is the latter case.
At the Republican Convention many were shouting "Put her in jail". That's also freedom of speech. : )
回複 '阿留' 的評論 : Your understanding on fifth amendment was wrong, my interpretation was accurate.
Although they are not exactly the same between Trump's comments and double jeopardy, I was more focusing on Trump's behavior to abuse his potential executive power, this was exactly the founding fathers' intention to prevent from happening.
雅美之途 發表評論於
回複 'comeback' 的評論 : You should do your homework before you put anything here: http://fortune.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-threatens-jail-hillary-clinton/
Democrats and Republicans Agree: Donald Trump Was Wrong to Threaten Hillary Clinton With Jail
The rule for mistrials depends upon who sought the mistrial. If the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, unless the prosecutor acted in "bad faith," i.e. goaded the defendant into moving for a mistrial because the government specifically wanted a mistrial.[77]
If the prosecutor moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial if the trial judge finds "manifest necessity" for granting the mistrial.[78] The same standard governs mistrials granted sua sponte.
Retrials are not common, due to the legal expenses to the government. However, in the mid-1980s Georgia antiques dealer James Arthur Williams was tried a record four times for the murder of Danny Hansford and (after three mistrials) was finally acquitted on the grounds of self-defense. The case is recounted in the book Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil which was adapted into a film directed by Clint Eastwood (the movie omits the first three murder trials).”
comeback 發表評論於
川普說的"Because you'd be in jail",根據上下文來看,就是一虛擬語氣。作者就這一爛英文水平,還成天在這裏指點江山,自以為進入了主流社會
昨天晚上的辯論,那位Anderson Cooper的第一個問題居然就是讓川普交代十年前的那番“黃色”講話。看來民主黨的媒體認為總統最重要的資格是由他是否講色情決定的。果真如此,當年比爾 克林頓就應該因為做的遠超於川普說的而被彈劾了。可當初就是因為民主黨們的力保才使克林頓立於不倒。可見民主黨們並不認為這類行為應當影響做總統的資格。既然如此,何以今天他們對川普發難,僅僅因言就要取消川普做總統的資格。
輪到希拉裏講話時,上來就講:they go low,we go high。結果她立馬開始評論川普的講話,剛說了她要go high,分明就衝著川普的low去了。她對她的丈夫的low 並無深惡痛絕,非但不認為應當影響他做總統的資格,也不認為應當影響做她丈夫的資格,卻對川普言論如此難以容忍,分明是利益驅使的雙重標準。
根據第五條修正案的規定,被告不能作為證人,也不能利用被告的言論為被告自己定罪,所以被告說話可以盡可能少或拒絕回答問題,以免對自己不利。修正案是這樣陳述的:“nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,”