From what I have been reading lately, justice system stinks !

[AllieBaba]

And look how far you've come! All grown up and pestering folks on the internet!

 

[KittenKoder]

And look how far you've come! All grown up and pestering folks on the internet!

Naw ... just pestering more people now. Didn't have nearly as much time when I was homeless because *gasp* I wanted to get a better life. Too many of those I met in the shelter just didn't care, almost all were shipped in from other states to. The sad fact is that there are a lot of criminals in the shelters because of course no one will give them a place to live (rightfully so in most cases) and they just have no desire to better themselves at all. There are a few I knew who weren't criminals but just would have preferred living in the wilds instead of an apartment but were always run out of their camp sites by idiotic judges. The criminals were the ones abusing the system the most and wasting all that they were given, set free by stupid technicalities.

 

[AllieBaba]

Kinda goes hand in hand with releasing all the nuts in the 70s, saying we should be absorbing them into our society instead of locking them up.

You just can't absorb everyone.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Somehow, I think the fact that the innocent were jailed in the first place proves the system doesn't work. How many innocent never get the chance to prove their case. Many of those innocent people who are released are released because organizations take on their case and provide the proof to the justice system. Worse, even then, when they are proved innocent, they are often not released immediately. The prosecutors do everything in their power to keep them in jail as long as possible because releasing an innocent person on their watch goes on their record.

I'm not sure that you can ever reach a standard where NO innocent people ever get convicted. The system relies on people to run it and people aren't perfect. That doesn't mean we should stop striving. Nor does it mean that our justice system is worse than others.

As a side note, we don't prove people innocent, we prove them not guilty. It really is significantly different.

Actually, my gripe (being of the "I don't really care" about the death penalty crowd) is that we do need to use many of the sciences available everywhere that are still widely ignored. If someone did ever harm me I would want justice, not having to worry too much about the wrong person getting it, I want the right person persecuted otherwise it's just wouldn't be worth it. There are many ways to decrease the number of innocent people prosecuted but still many courts will ignore a ton of evidence. Some still deny DNA evidence, even in this day. As for criminals NOT serving there time, I know a LOT personally (I don't like them so I don't know them that well) who have gotten out on technicalities or by finding a loophole (like rehabilitation programs) only to get back out on our tax dollars and commit more crime, while innocent people have to sit in jail/prison until the case can be reheard, and many more will never get their lives back just because the evidence no longer exists (such as the statutory rape incident which is more common than you seem to think). Now rape cases have the benefit of DNA evidence in most courts to ensure that almost all cases are at least a person who actually had sex with them, but it is still impossible to protect them completely from false rape charges. Junkies and drunks are let out with slaps on the wrist just for joining a program (all funded by tax dollars) and the programs rarely work. The wealthy can just buy their way out of jail. It's just a mess right now and people denying that it can be fixed are fooling themselves.

The problem about the "right" person getting it, leaving aside those cases where there is actually DNA present with sufficient markers to make a positive ID, is somebody has to pick that person out of the population at large. Sometimes this is an easy exercise, sometimes it is not. Witnesses are notoriously inaccurate in their descriptions of what and who they see. But, what are you going to do? Have an argument with an eye-witness over what they say they saw? In some cases you can (the famous Lincoln cross-examination), but in most cases you can't. Hopefully, you can get some confirming circumstantial evidence as to identity, but here is where there is a lot of room for error.

Let's say on a dark night, person "A" is mugged by two guys. They have hoodies on with their shirt over their lower face. They put a gun in person A's face and demand money. Person A complies and the criminals run away. Luckily person B sees all this from across the street and down a couple of houses.

The police come and what do they have? No DNA. So no positive way to make an ID. The second witness only saw the guys from the back. But was able to provide a description of the clothes and height/weight of the criminals. The only thing the complaining witness can do is confirm the clothes and add color of the criminals maybe. The police search all over and can't find the guys. A week later a guy matching the approximate description of the criminal is picked up on suspicion of another crime. The color of the hoodie he's wearing matches. I'm sure you see the difficulty. One false move on that person's part and he goes down for person A's mugging. Neither witness will be able to identify him in a line up, but if one of them chooses to, this guy is cooked.

All that said, how would you change the process?

I would be amazed if courts anywhere don't accept DNA evidence. Now, it may be an issue of presentation of evidence and the lawyer didn't do it right, didn't provide proper foundation etc. But, I would have to see a link on that.

I don't think I said anything about the frequency or likelihood of statutory rape charges. I made it a practice not to defend people charged with sexual assault or rape of any kind. I was not interested in ensuring those people were properly defended. There was a perfectly competent female attorney in our community that didn't have a problem defending rapists. I'm a little mystified that there was an identity issue in a statutory rape case though. Typically, statutory rape involves consensual sex where one of the parties is underage. I would think you would just ask the parties who the other person was. Hmmm.

It is not completely inaccurate to say that you can buy a better defense. There are loopholes. There are programs. But, these are social questions. Do we want a mandatory 5 year minimum for anyone caught with marijuana, first time or not? Here, we said no. So, first time drug possessors can make an "Alford plea" where they plead guilty to the crime, go get treatment and serve probation for a few years. If there are no subsequent arrests, the conviction is expunged. I don't think it is anyone's interest to ruin people's lives for a single transgression.

In Virginia, we have "truth in sentencing" laws. That means if a jury sentences you to 20 years, the absolute minimum you will do is 18.5 years.

 

[Diuretic]

The problem with a criminal justice system whch is descended from English common law is that it has a certain pedigree. That pedigree isn't about keeping you safe, it's about protecting privilege. And until a system is rebuilt from the ground up with objectives that reflect the needs of a democracy then the original DNA of the system will influence all of its processes. As Tech has argued, a human system is going to be fallible. But I would argue that the inherent nature of any common law-derived criminal justice system creates more likelihood of egregious errors and even corruption of process than would a system that was rebuilt from scratch.

 

[KittenKoder]

Kinda goes hand in hand with releasing all the nuts in the 70s, saying we should be absorbing them into our society instead of locking them up.

You just can't absorb everyone.

So true, we did that ourselves in this state only a decade ago ... most of them joined the homeless community, though you really can't call it joined, more like the shelters had to step up and house them now because otherwise they'd be running the streets.

 

[AllieBaba]

The problem with a criminal justice system whch is descended from English common law is that it has a certain pedigree. That pedigree isn't about keeping you safe, it's about protecting privilege. And until a system is rebuilt from the ground up with objectives that reflect the needs of a democracy then the original DNA of the system will influence all of its processes. As Tech has argued, a human system is going to be fallible. But I would argue that the inherent nature of any common law-derived criminal justice system creates more likelihood of egregious errors and even corruption of process than would a system that was rebuilt from scratch.

*yawn*

 

[Tech_Esq]

The problem with a criminal justice system whch is descended from English common law is that it has a certain pedigree. That pedigree isn't about keeping you safe, it's about protecting privilege. And until a system is rebuilt from the ground up with objectives that reflect the needs of a democracy then the original DNA of the system will influence all of its processes. As Tech has argued, a human system is going to be fallible. But I would argue that the inherent nature of any common law-derived criminal justice system creates more likelihood of egregious errors and even corruption of process than would a system that was rebuilt from scratch.

Luckily, we can test this theory. Louisiana, because of it's unique history, has a legal system which is not based on the English Common Law. It is based on the Napoleonic Code.

I don't know know much about it, but is there anyone here that would like to posit that it is a better system than the courts of the rest of the states?

 

[Diuretic]

Luckily, we can test this theory. Louisiana, because of it's unique history, has a legal system which is not based on the English Common Law. It is based on the Napoleonic Code.

I don't know know much about it, but is there anyone here that would like to posit that it is a better system than the courts of the rest of the states?

I'd like to see a good comparative discussion but I don't think Louisiana is a good example. Now having said that I have to say I'm not familiar with its legal system. I have read that, like Quebec, it has a legal system influenced by the Napoleonic Code. I know Quebec limits its influence to the civil law (got to watch my terminology here, by "civil" I mean private law - torts and such - and not the "civil" law of Europe derived from Roman Law).

I don't know a lot about the contemporary French system but it does differ significantly from the English system (shorthand for common law). For example, hearsay is admissible prima facie but it's given due weight. Juries sit with the judge to go through the evidence and deliberations. In investigations by police there is significant external (from the police) judicial control via the use of examining magistrates (juges d'instruction) in serious matters, supposedly limiting possible abuses by police.

There are are a few more I remember, but it's a long while since I looked at comparative legal systems and I may not have kept up.

Sorry, forgot to add that in La. I was thinking that law enforcement and the trial process may be close enough to the common law to be not useful for direct comparisons, which is why I referenced France.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Luckily, we can test this theory. Louisiana, because of it's unique history, has a legal system which is not based on the English Common Law. It is based on the Napoleonic Code.

I don't know know much about it, but is there anyone here that would like to posit that it is a better system than the courts of the rest of the states?

I'd like to see a good comparative discussion but I don't think Louisiana is a good example. Now having said that I have to say I'm not familiar with its legal system. I have read that, like Quebec, it has a legal system influenced by the Napoleonic Code. I know Quebec limits its influence to the civil law (got to watch my terminology here, by "civil" I mean private law - torts and such - and not the "civil" law of Europe derived from Roman Law).

I don't know a lot about the contemporary French system but it does differ significantly from the English system (shorthand for common law). For example, hearsay is admissible prima facie but it's given due weight. Juries sit with the judge to go through the evidence and deliberations. In investigations by police there is significant external (from the police) judicial control via the use of examining magistrates (juges d'instruction) in serious matters, supposedly limiting possible abuses by police.

There are are a few more I remember, but it's a long while since I looked at comparative legal systems and I may not have kept up.

Sorry, forgot to add that in La. I was thinking that law enforcement and the trial process may be close enough to the common law to be not useful for direct comparisons, which is why I referenced France.

Yes, upon some review, the LA law does not seem to be a "purely" different enough system to provide a good comparison. I think you point out a major feature of competing systems where you talk about inquisitive judges. Much more so than in the "English" system, judges seek to find the truth in court cases and are responsible for asking their own questions.

I have always rather considered this a weakness rather than a strength of those systems. I would think counsel in an adversarial system would be more driven to draw out evidence from the witnesses than a judge that has nothing riding on the case. What if you have a lazy judge?

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, upon some review, the LA law does not seem to be a "purely" different enough system to provide a good comparison. I think you point out a major feature of competing systems where you talk about inquisitive judges. Much more so than in the "English" system, judges seek to find the truth in court cases and are responsible for asking their own questions.

I have always rather considered this a weakness rather than a strength of those systems. I would think counsel in an adversarial system would be more driven to draw out evidence from the witnesses than a judge that has nothing riding on the case. What if you have a lazy judge?

I think the appellate system would sort out a lazy judge. And let's be frank, there are lazy, stupid, indifferent, perverted, corrupt, senile and incompetent judges in the common law systems, their cockups usually (hopefully) get sorted out by the appeal courts. But I will concede that since judges are not as active in the adversarial system then them falling asleep while counsel are arguing points may not be as bad as if it happened in a trial in the French system, I mean the judge can always read the transcript after his or her snooze.

I have to admit most of the criticisms I have of the adversarial system have been voiced by others. One of them is that if a lawyer is trained in the adversarial system with its great sense of theatre and its reliance on sterling deeds by individual counsel then he or she will be reluctant to exchange the excitement of the gladiatorial contest of the common law criminal trial for the relatively calm and even subdued nature of the inquisitorial process.

And that's part of what I was trying to get at. If you were to rebuild the criminal justice system would you let the preferences of lawyers for the excitement of the adversarial system dictate the new structure?

I don't know if this is fair or if it's accurate but I did read some years ago a critique written by a Dutch lawyer who suggested that the adversarial system was a search for "procedural" truth while the inquisitorial system was a search for "actual" truth. I think there's just a touch of hyperbole in there but essentially I think it's correct.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Somehow, I think the fact that the innocent were jailed in the first place proves the system doesn't work. How many innocent never get the chance to prove their case. Many of those innocent people who are released are released because organizations take on their case and provide the proof to the justice system. Worse, even then, when they are proved innocent, they are often not released immediately. The prosecutors do everything in their power to keep them in jail as long as possible because releasing an innocent person on their watch goes on their record.

I'm not sure that you can ever reach a standard where NO innocent people ever get convicted. The system relies on people to run it and people aren't perfect. That doesn't mean we should stop striving. Nor does it mean that our justice system is worse than others.

As a side note, we don't prove people innocent, we prove them not guilty. It really is significantly different.

Actually, my gripe (being of the "I don't really care" about the death penalty crowd) is that we do need to use many of the sciences available everywhere that are still widely ignored. If someone did ever harm me I would want justice, not having to worry too much about the wrong person getting it, I want the right person persecuted otherwise it's just wouldn't be worth it. There are many ways to decrease the number of innocent people prosecuted but still many courts will ignore a ton of evidence. Some still deny DNA evidence, even in this day. As for criminals NOT serving there time, I know a LOT personally (I don't like them so I don't know them that well) who have gotten out on technicalities or by finding a loophole (like rehabilitation programs) only to get back out on our tax dollars and commit more crime, while innocent people have to sit in jail/prison until the case can be reheard, and many more will never get their lives back just because the evidence no longer exists (such as the statutory rape incident which is more common than you seem to think). Now rape cases have the benefit of DNA evidence in most courts to ensure that almost all cases are at least a person who actually had sex with them, but it is still impossible to protect them completely from false rape charges. Junkies and drunks are let out with slaps on the wrist just for joining a program (all funded by tax dollars) and the programs rarely work. The wealthy can just buy their way out of jail. It's just a mess right now and people denying that it can be fixed are fooling themselves.

Once again YOU claimed more people were innocent that were PUT TO DEATH then guilty that actually serve. Provide some evidence.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And look how far you've come! All grown up and pestering folks on the internet!

Naw ... just pestering more people now. Didn't have nearly as much time when I was homeless because *gasp* I wanted to get a better life. Too many of those I met in the shelter just didn't care, almost all were shipped in from other states to. The sad fact is that there are a lot of criminals in the shelters because of course no one will give them a place to live (rightfully so in most cases) and they just have no desire to better themselves at all. There are a few I knew who weren't criminals but just would have preferred living in the wilds instead of an apartment but were always run out of their camp sites by idiotic judges. The criminals were the ones abusing the system the most and wasting all that they were given, set free by stupid technicalities.

Wait. let me get this right.... You want no innocents convicted ever but find fault with "technicalities" that ensure that does not happen? Get a clue dear.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm not sure that you can ever reach a standard where NO innocent people ever get convicted. The system relies on people to run it and people aren't perfect. That doesn't mean we should stop striving. Nor does it mean that our justice system is worse than others.

As a side note, we don't prove people innocent, we prove them not guilty. It really is significantly different.

Actually, my gripe (being of the "I don't really care" about the death penalty crowd) is that we do need to use many of the sciences available everywhere that are still widely ignored. If someone did ever harm me I would want justice, not having to worry too much about the wrong person getting it, I want the right person persecuted otherwise it's just wouldn't be worth it. There are many ways to decrease the number of innocent people prosecuted but still many courts will ignore a ton of evidence. Some still deny DNA evidence, even in this day. As for criminals NOT serving there time, I know a LOT personally (I don't like them so I don't know them that well) who have gotten out on technicalities or by finding a loophole (like rehabilitation programs) only to get back out on our tax dollars and commit more crime, while innocent people have to sit in jail/prison until the case can be reheard, and many more will never get their lives back just because the evidence no longer exists (such as the statutory rape incident which is more common than you seem to think). Now rape cases have the benefit of DNA evidence in most courts to ensure that almost all cases are at least a person who actually had sex with them, but it is still impossible to protect them completely from false rape charges. Junkies and drunks are let out with slaps on the wrist just for joining a program (all funded by tax dollars) and the programs rarely work. The wealthy can just buy their way out of jail. It's just a mess right now and people denying that it can be fixed are fooling themselves.

Once again YOU claimed more people were innocent that were PUT TO DEATH then guilty that actually serve. Provide some evidence.

You have no personality, creativity, or rationality do you? Denying the evidence just because it doesn't fit with your narrow views does not make it go away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, my gripe (being of the "I don't really care" about the death penalty crowd) is that we do need to use many of the sciences available everywhere that are still widely ignored. If someone did ever harm me I would want justice, not having to worry too much about the wrong person getting it, I want the right person persecuted otherwise it's just wouldn't be worth it. There are many ways to decrease the number of innocent people prosecuted but still many courts will ignore a ton of evidence. Some still deny DNA evidence, even in this day. As for criminals NOT serving there time, I know a LOT personally (I don't like them so I don't know them that well) who have gotten out on technicalities or by finding a loophole (like rehabilitation programs) only to get back out on our tax dollars and commit more crime, while innocent people have to sit in jail/prison until the case can be reheard, and many more will never get their lives back just because the evidence no longer exists (such as the statutory rape incident which is more common than you seem to think). Now rape cases have the benefit of DNA evidence in most courts to ensure that almost all cases are at least a person who actually had sex with them, but it is still impossible to protect them completely from false rape charges. Junkies and drunks are let out with slaps on the wrist just for joining a program (all funded by tax dollars) and the programs rarely work. The wealthy can just buy their way out of jail. It's just a mess right now and people denying that it can be fixed are fooling themselves.

Once again YOU claimed more people were innocent that were PUT TO DEATH then guilty that actually serve. Provide some evidence.

You have no personality, creativity, or rationality do you? Denying the evidence just because it doesn't fit with your narrow views does not make it go away.

You have not provided one shred of evidence of all these innocents put to death. In fact you have totally changed your argument.

 

[strollingbones]

you wanna get laid you go to the cathouse...you wanna get fucked you go to the courthouse

 

[editec]

In 2007 we had 2.3 million people in prison.

If 1% of them are innocent of the crimes for which they are serving, that's about 23,000 innocent people living in hell.

What do far too many Americans think know about our justice system?..

We think that our cops are too often nothing but arrogant bullies who, if they find themselves in court, will lie like rugs.

We think that prosecuters care more about their record of convictions than attaining real justice.

We know that poor people don't get adequte legal defence, and that wealthy people get preferential treatment.

We think that judges are as concerned with the game of the law as they are in meting out justice.

In other words. far too many of us are of the opinion that the law is an ass.

And most annoying of all, even as we evolve into a police state, many Americans live in as much fear of being victimized by criminal justice excesses and enthusiasms as we fear being victimized by criminals.

After all, in most cases if you're victimized by crime, you take your lumps and you move on with your life

But if you're an innocent victimized by a criminal justice system, your life is essantially ruined.

My impression of the police and courts systems would is this -- if you're an innocent young male, the odds that you'll be harassed by the police at least occassionally is almost 100%. And if you're foolish enough to stand up for your rights as a citizen, you're likely to find yourself arrested for not being obsequious enough to satisfy the ego of the badged nitwit who is harrassing you.

And, much worse, if you're an innocent young Black male, then the odds that you'll eventually be harassed by the entire criminal justice sytem -- even to the point where you'll end up with some kind of criminal record -- is even higher.

Now, if we lived in a society with almost no crime, one where criminals lived in fear of being caught, that might be the price this society pays for that safety from crime.

But since the majority of us do not live in such a society, one wonders if this is really the best we can do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In 2007 we had 2.3 million people in prison.

If 1% of them are innocent of the crimes for which they are serving, that's about 23,000 innocent people living in hell.

What do far too many Americans think know about our justice system?..

We think that our cops are too often nothing but arrogant bullies who, if they find themselves in court, will lie like rugs.

We think that prosecuters care more about their record of convictions than attaining real justice.

We know that poor people don't get adequte legal defence, and that wealthy people get preferential treatment.

We think that judges are as concerned with the game of the law as they are in meting out justice.

In other words. far too many of us are of the opinion that the law is an ass.

And most annoying of all, even as we evolve into a police state, many Americans live in as much fear of being victimized by criminal justice excesses and enthusiasms as we fear being victimized by criminals.

After all, in most cases if you're victimized by crime, you take your lumps and you move on with your life

But if you're an innocent victimized by a criminal justice system, your life is essantially ruined.

My impression of the police and courts systems would is this -- if you're an innocent young male, the odds that you'll be harassed by the police at least occassionally is almost 100%. And if you're foolish enough to stand up for your rights as a citizen, you're likely to find yourself arrested for not being obsequious enough to satisfy the ego of the badged nitwit who is harrassing you.

And, much worse, if you're an innocent young Black male, then the odds that you'll eventually be harassed by the entire criminal justice sytem -- even to the point where you'll end up with some kind of criminal record -- is even higher.

Now, if we lived in a society with almost no crime, one where criminals lived in fear of being caught, that might be the price this society pays for that safety from crime.

But since the majority of us do not live in such a society, one wonders if this is really the best we can do.

You got caught breaking the law, live with it and stop claiming all cops are liars and scum. YOU are part of the problem and the reason criminals go free.

 

[KittenKoder]

In 2007 we had 2.3 million people in prison.

If 1% of them are innocent of the crimes for which they are serving, that's about 23,000 innocent people living in hell.

What do far too many Americans think know about our justice system?..

We think that our cops are too often nothing but arrogant bullies who, if they find themselves in court, will lie like rugs.

We think that prosecuters care more about their record of convictions than attaining real justice.

We know that poor people don't get adequte legal defence, and that wealthy people get preferential treatment.

We think that judges are as concerned with the game of the law as they are in meting out justice.

In other words. far too many of us are of the opinion that the law is an ass.

And most annoying of all, even as we evolve into a police state, many Americans live in as much fear of being victimized by criminal justice excesses and enthusiasms as we fear being victimized by criminals.

After all, in most cases if you're victimized by crime, you take your lumps and you move on with your life

But if you're an innocent victimized by a criminal justice system, your life is essantially ruined.

My impression of the police and courts systems would is this -- if you're an innocent young male, the odds that you'll be harassed by the police at least occassionally is almost 100%. And if you're foolish enough to stand up for your rights as a citizen, you're likely to find yourself arrested for not being obsequious enough to satisfy the ego of the badged nitwit who is harrassing you.

And, much worse, if you're an innocent young Black male, then the odds that you'll eventually be harassed by the entire criminal justice sytem -- even to the point where you'll end up with some kind of criminal record -- is even higher.

Now, if we lived in a society with almost no crime, one where criminals lived in fear of being caught, that might be the price this society pays for that safety from crime.

But since the majority of us do not live in such a society, one wonders if this is really the best we can do.

You got caught breaking the law, live with it and stop claiming all cops are liars and scum. YOU are part of the problem and the reason criminals go free.

And now you are changing your statement to suite the evidence while still maintaining the falsehood you hold so dearly to based only on the opinion portion of Editecs post so you can again ignore the fact portion. See why I don't bother with statistics and links, look at the first to lines of his post again, that's what I showed a portion of which you still ignored. However he didn't even repeat anything about those put to death who were innocent (oddly the bulk is in Texas) which if you had read even one of the links I posted (time wasted on a denier again) you would notice was actually even higher in quantity than those just in jail.

 

[KittenKoder]

RGS ... get the swine out of your head, when wrong fess up, admit it, and move on. You are the perfect example of what is wrong with our country and why nothing ever gets done.