Bring Back Superman

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by pegwinn, Apr 18, 2004.

  1. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    One of my personal favorites as a kid was Superman (a registered trademark of DC Comics and an American Icon). This guy rocked. Superman fought crime in America. He took on the bad guys and always triumphed. He stood for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”. Over the years, his comic remained, but Supes has gone into hiding. If he stood up for the current “American Way” now, he’d be a bad guy.

    What does truth and fighting crime have in common? Not much. Did you know that our criminal courts don’t care about truth? They exclude actual factual evidence on technicalities. They allow manipulation of juries in ways that have no bearing on facts. They will interpret the law to suit the defendant, but almost never the prosecution.

    Here’s how criminal court should be conducted:

    NO JURY MANIPULATION: The trial takes place in the locality of the crime. The jury consists of 15 (12 primary and 3 alternate) registered voters. If someone registers to vote you can be assured they actually give a damn. And it is reasonable to assume they are smart enough to receive, analyze, and understand evidence and instruction. They are chosen by lottery. The only one who can exclude anyone is the judge. His exclusions are limited to the number of alternates available. Lawyers may present detailed requests for exclusion, but they should not have the right of peremptory dismissal. The idea is that to be truly impartial, neither side should be allowed to shape the jury. Oh yeah, and all jury costs are equally split between the two parties as long as the defense isn’t court appointed. There have been appeals based on the jury being paid by the state.

    NO EXCLUDING EVIDENCE: Remember, the new objective of the criminal court is to ascertain TRUTH. Guilt or Innocence will flow from the absolute facts of the matter. So, no evidence can be excluded. The judge has an obligation to ensure the jury receives the facts. IF evidence was obtained illegally then the judge must accept the evidence and initiate a separate prosecution. If it became a rock steady tenet of law that illegal searches would be prosecuted, there would be far less alleged corner cutting by law enforcement.

    STICK TO THE FACTS: Each juror should receive a briefing paper from both sides. It needs to resemble a military JAG (Judge Advocate General) investigation in content. Basically it would outline the facts of the case (and each fact must cite an item of evidence), form opinions (which are based solely on the facts cited before), and provide recommendations (which must rely on the facts cited, and obviously flow from the opinions formed). This is not the entire case. But, the jury then has a script, a program if you will, of the proceedings. This will allow them to monitor testimony and possibly see tricky strategy as it happens. Finally, there needs to be a twist. The jury should be able to submit questions to the attorneys and the judge should compel them to answer. For a separate class on constructing an ironclad investigation document, go read chapter two of the Jag Manual itself.

    COMPEL TESTIMONY: Ok, here it is. Fix the 5th Amendment. “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…” This needs to go. Since our Constitution is a “Living Document”, we need to realize that in the late 18th century the “compelling” was a euphemism for torture. I believe that in order to get to the truth, we can now compel truthful answers using a polygraph, or truth serum. Like it or not, it is common knowledge that if you invoke the 5th amendment at all you are likely hiding something. There are a few social misfits out there who invoke the 5th just for the pleasure of watching the court jump through hoops. But the overwhelming majority of the people who “didn’t do it” are happy to help prove they are innocent. By compelling (humanely) a truthful answer we will eliminate a huge number of trials by excluding the innocent.

    PUT APPEALS IN LINE BY SEVERITY: Here’s another one guaranteed to tick off the many. Appeals should be heard by severity in order to either set aside or implement the harshest sentence. Assume you are found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without parole. Assume the other felon is sentenced to death. The death penalty case should hit the appeal docket first. Obviously it would fall in behind older death penalties. It makes no sense for a fifteen-year gap between sentencing and actual completion of sentence.

    Our courts are still the best in the world. But as times change the old and new rules and attitudes are jumbled up in a mess of confusions that snarl up what should be a straightforward process. If we focus more on the truth, we will actually end up protecting the innocent and assuring more fair trials for the accused. By focusing on Truth first (as Superman did) we will make sure that everyone is accountable and actual Justice is achieved.

    Oh yeah
     
  2. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Very interesting ideas. I am not at all fond of your fourth one however. Protection against Self incrimination should be a right. However, that right should not extend to doctors, lawyers, spouses though- how the hell are they "Self"?
     
  3. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    I understand your point. But, we compel testimony every day when we ask our kids "who did that?" In PopsWorld there was no fifth amendment. The whole point of the "you have the right to remain silent" idea is to protect against physical or mental torture. I am advocating we inform the suspect that he/she is suspected of committing a crime. Then with a doctor present we inject them with truth serum or hook em up to a lie detector. Then we ask "did you commit the crime?". My whole point is to uncover the bald truth and actually trust an un-manipulated jury to digest every fact and render a verdict.
     
  4. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    First off, the law of doctors and lawyers is to ensure that these people can do their job. Now, I think defending a person you know is guilty shouldn't be considered ethical, so that one should probably go, but the doctor one I can understand. If you were snorting coke and your nose started bleeding and wouldn't stop, this is vital information to give to a doctor so he can save your life. However, if the doctor is allowed to testify against you for saying that, you might not tell him, and you would die. That's the reason for the doctor thing. As for spouses, it's a "sanctity of marriage" thing. Although sanctity of marriage isn't as big in this country as it used to be, being able to trust your spouse is still something to strive for. It has nothing to do with self-incrimination. It's a seperate statute.

    Now, as for eliminating the fifth ammendment, I'm against that. Whether by torture or "humane" means, nobody should be forced to incriminate themselves. I'm all for a polygraph or truth serum in the presence of the prosecutor and the defense, but it shouldn't be allowed in court.

    Everything else, I like.
     
  5. pegwinn
    Offline

    pegwinn Top of the Food Chain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,549
    Thanks Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +329
    Why shouldn't it be allowed in court? By not allowing it in court, you will learn the absolute truth and not apply it. We do that now with all the evidence thrown out by our current crop of judges. The only thing that should be allowed to seperate a convict from a suspect is......... the truth. Thanks for reading.
     
  6. NewGuy
    Online

    NewGuy Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Pegwinn,

    I think it's funny you say to bring back superman.

    Are YOU willing to step up to the plate?

    I want to know who takes action and who talks.

    "He stood for “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”. Over the years, his comic remained, but Supes has gone into hiding. If he stood up for the current “American Way” now, he’d be a bad guy.
    "

    Right.

    How are you changing that?

    The first thing you did was suggest violating our Constitution.
    "Remember, the new objective of the criminal court is to ascertain TRUTH. "

    That has never been the whole job, but the least significant part.

    Then you want to manipulate the 5th Ammendment.

    How about standing up for the Constitution first and being willing to take a bullet in the face for it?

    That is what heros are made of.
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Are you a hero, newguy? sounds like you might be. You know alot about it!
     
  8. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    First off, the reason truth serum and polygraphs aren't allowed in court right now have nothing to do about self-incrimination. It has everything to do about reliability. The reason prosecutors use them at all is to see if everything's on the level. Sometimes defendants undertake polygraph tests to prove their innocence. That's what we'd use it for.

    The fifth ammendment is sacred. If it's violated to convict a guilty person, you can bet it would be violated to convict an innocent person. Leave it where it is.
     
  9. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    I can offer some insight on polygraph testing. Years ago I worked at a place where money was stolen from the office. I was one of a handful of people who were in close proximity at the time, and thus was required to take a polygraph test.

    I've never stolen a thing in my life. It's not that I'm Abraham Lincoln-I would just be shit-scared to do it. But after the thief confessed, I was told that I had flunked the test miserably. Apparently, even being asked if I stole the money upset me badly enough to affect the reading.

    So I can tell you from personal experience, there's a reason polygraph results are inadmissable in court, and I'm damn glad of it.
     
  10. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Now we know who to blame for stuff. Let me be the first to say:



    "Musicman did it!"
     

Share This Page