Improving the Legal System

3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.

Where in the world did you read that?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556]Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books[/ame]
And that's by a liberal, btw.
 
3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.

Where in the world did you read that?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556]Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books[/ame]
And that's by a liberal, btw.

I would NOT even buy every American commits ONE felony a day, and I assume he means adults, as some states codify children under a certain age can not commit crimes, so right there, the title is misleading.

The book is a fallacy, and no such theory exists, impossible.
 
Where in the world did you read that?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556]Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books[/ame]
And that's by a liberal, btw.

I would NOT even buy every American commits ONE felony a day, and I assume he means adults, as some states codify children under a certain age can not commit crimes, so right there, the title is misleading.

The book is a fallacy, and no such theory exists, impossible.

Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?
 
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?

No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.

He does not even say the "average person".


The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?
 
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?

No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.

He does not even say the "average person".


The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?

OK. So you're just talking out your ass.
Understood.

I dont know whether what he says is true or not. I do know there are lot of things that are felonies that used to be misdemeanors. And a lot of things that people get charged with are crimes only by the furthest stretch of the imagination.
For example, an acquaintance of mine was charged with creating child porn. Bad, true. But part of the charge made it a federal crime because he used a camera that was made in Japan and imported here.
That is just dumb.
 
it breaks the Constitution PC.

That should end the discussion of that option right there, no?

Unless you think we can get the necessary votes to amend the constitution, taking away this protection from illegal search and seizure?


Care

Actually the exclusionary rule itself is not part of the Constitution so no amendment would be needed. But I agree that it would bad policy to eliminate it.

To improve things:
1) English loser pays rule to limit tort suits.
2) No contingency fee arrangements
3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.
4) Professional jury system. Or some limit. Currently jurors are people too stupid to get out of it. That has to end.
5) No judge shopping. A case gets assigned and thats it, unless there is some conflct or malfeasance.



Hey Rabbi we agree on something!!! #1 on your list MUST happen to get these cases cut down so they don't continue to overwhelm our court system.


But hey I think he asked for ONE thing not 5 but what the hey what the heck. :)
 
I think the best way to improve the legal system is simply this: If the judge sentences you to 20 years in prison, you do 20 years. If the judge sentences you to death, you receive that sentence within 30 days. No time off for good behavior. No early paroles because of the crowded conditions or for "good behavior". No tv's, newspapers, books, etc., etc. No nice weight rooms or game rooms. Let's make prison a place that nobody wants to go to. That will help improve the legal system.
 
I don't know the term but MOST western have a law that says if you lose a court battle then you are responsible for the legal costs of BOTH parties. It would cut down on FRIVILOUS lawsuits I can tell you that for SURE!

In federal court the so called "American rule" is generally enforced, unless codifed different.
 
I would change the exclusionary rule "which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law."

I would vote to keep it. If they can't prosecute me without evidence obtained legally, they should not, IMO.


3. All police should be required to have liability insurance for said actions, and should be liable in civil suits.

They are potentially liable in civil suits, you just have to overcome the burden of qualified immunity.
 
I think the best way to improve the legal system is simply this: If the judge sentences you to 20 years in prison, you do 20 years. If the judge sentences you to death, you receive that sentence within 30 days. No time off for good behavior. No early paroles because of the crowded conditions or for "good behavior". No tv's, newspapers, books, etc., etc. No nice weight rooms or game rooms. Let's make prison a place that nobody wants to go to. That will help improve the legal system.




Well Gawd knows we don't need any money to build SCHOOLS. Tell me where will the money come from to keep people in prison for the MAX sentence?
 
I would change the exclusionary rule "which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law."

I would vote to keep it. If they can't prosecute me without evidence obtained legally, they should not, IMO.


3. All police should be required to have liability insurance for said actions, and should be liable in civil suits.

They are potentially liable in civil suits, you just have to overcome the burden of qualified immunity.

" If they can't prosecute me without evidence obtained legally, they should not, IMO."
What did you do?

Does your victim get to have a say?
 
it breaks the Constitution PC.

That should end the discussion of that option right there, no?

Unless you think we can get the necessary votes to amend the constitution, taking away this protection from illegal search and seizure?


Care

The question was what might improve the legal system.

If enough folks agreed that there should not be a legal way around evidence

for a guilty party, our Founding Fathers actually installed a way to change

the Constition.

That's why it is the Constution, not the dual-tablets.


"It was a powerful blast, throwing one officer in the station parking lot completely over his patrol car and sending shrapnel for over two city blocks. The bomb fortunately detonated a few minutes early so the destruction was less than it might have been. Still, nine were wounded, one -- Officer Robert Fogarty -- badly enough that he retired from the force on disability, and one, Sergeant Brian McDonnell, 45 year old married father of two, was killed.
...some evidence in the past that could have been used against the Weather Underground was ruled inadmissible ...
As he walked out of the courthouse, Ayers famously said:"Guilty as Hell, Free as a Bird."
American Thinker: Guilty as Hell, Free as a Bird (for now)

you are not making sense....pc

If enough folks agreed that there should not be a legal way around evidence

for a guilty party,

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW they are GUILTY parties if they hadn't gone to trial yet PC? Are you presuming guilt instead of presuming innocence before the trial and want that changed as well?

All evidence obtained would be admissible.

Then we deal with how the evidence would be obtained.

A windfall for trial lawyers, I guess.
 
Does your victim get to have a say?

No.


So there it is. I now understand your entire position. It bothers you that protections for the accused sometimes come at the expense of the victim, and sometimes true justice.

I cannot dispute this. It is absolute, 100% truth.

But I still believe deep down in every fiber of my being that it is worth the cost. IMO, the risk of an occasional miscarriage of justice is dwarfed by the risk of localized authoritarian oppression that necessarily accompanies repeal of the 4th Amendment.
 
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?

No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.

He does not even say the "average person".


The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?

OK. So you're just talking out your ass.
Understood.

I dont know whether what he says is true or not. I do know there are lot of things that are felonies that used to be misdemeanors. And a lot of things that people get charged with are crimes only by the furthest stretch of the imagination.
For example, an acquaintance of mine was charged with creating child porn. Bad, true. But part of the charge made it a federal crime because he used a camera that was made in Japan and imported here.
That is just dumb.

Come on, that's hardly a stretch. The US Supreme Court said in Wickard v. Filburn that wheat grown by someone for their own consumption violated the US regulations on the production of farm goods which they were able to regulate because even though the wheat did not travel in interstate commerce and was not even for sale on the market, it reduced the demand for wheat because that farmer was able to use it himself instead of having to purchase it.

Now that's a stretch!
 
Does your victim get to have a say?

No.


So there it is. I now understand your entire position. It bothers you that protections for the accused sometimes come at the expense of the victim, and sometimes true justice.

I cannot dispute this. It is absolute, 100% truth.

But I still believe deep down in every fiber of my being that it is worth the cost. IMO, the risk of an occasional miscarriage of justice is dwarfed by the risk of localized authoritarian oppression that necessarily accompanies repeal of the 4th Amendment.

You could probably remedy PC's issue without repealing the 4th amendment and simply repealing the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine used to exclude evidence tainted by illegal search and seizure and instead have a judge balance the equities of including or excluding the evidence.
 
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?

No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.

He does not even say the "average person".


The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?

OK. So you're just talking out your ass.
Understood.

I dont know whether what he says is true or not. I do know there are lot of things that are felonies that used to be misdemeanors. And a lot of things that people get charged with are crimes only by the furthest stretch of the imagination.
For example, an acquaintance of mine was charged with creating child porn. Bad, true. But part of the charge made it a federal crime because he used a camera that was made in Japan and imported here.
That is just dumb.

It would be interesting to read how he came up with such a theory.

Three felonies a day? You might be able to convince me of three misdemeanors per day especially if you were speaking to me while I was driving. Are traffic infractions (yes, I have a lead foot) considered misdemeanors?

Immie
 
I think the best way to improve the legal system is simply this: If the judge sentences you to 20 years in prison, you do 20 years. If the judge sentences you to death, you receive that sentence within 30 days. No time off for good behavior. No early paroles because of the crowded conditions or for "good behavior". No tv's, newspapers, books, etc., etc. No nice weight rooms or game rooms. Let's make prison a place that nobody wants to go to. That will help improve the legal system.




Well Gawd knows we don't need any money to build SCHOOLS. Tell me where will the money come from to keep people in prison for the MAX sentence?

This has been the law in Virginia for over 15 years. Guess what? It works. It's called "Truth in Sentencing." It was found that juries were confused by the system where criminals could get parole much earlier than the sentence they received. Now, if you get a 20 year sentence and you a model prisoner, you do 18.5 years.

We also have project Exile (or its successor. Exile was the pilot project). You commit a crime and possess a gun while doing it, more time. You brandish the gun, more time still. You fire the gun even more time. You actually hit someone, extra bonus time. Guess what, that one works too.

It doesn't take too long before "the street" knows what happens when the punishment is swift and sure. And, word on the street, especially in DC and Maryland is: "If you want to commit a crime, you better stay out of Virginia, cuz they don't play."
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top