Why the US Supreme Court has truth methods unconstitutional ?

[ask why]

Why does America give justice to all and freedom to those who can afford Lawyers? Our court system was designed to protect the citizens from being unjustly accused of a crime. Why do our laws help the accused and work against the victims? Evidence is hard to find and keep from being denied in court because of a good lawyer using the law to protect his accused. Why not use truth serums and lie detecting methods when there is an accused being questioned. Supreme Court says accused might unknowingly confess to the crime. The victims did not ask to be a victim. Should we use all means necessary to achieve justice?

 

[saveliberty]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

 

[TNHarley]

use truth serums? Seriously?

 

[saveliberty]

use truth serums? Seriously?

Works the precrime unit?

 

[BULLDOG]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

Still, in lots of cases, you can only have as much justice as you can afford.

 

[saveliberty]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

Still, in lots of cases, you can only have as much justice as you can afford.

OJ?

 

[TNHarley]

Our system is flawed. We have rich people that can get away with anything. Poor people will be locked up for a year for having 15 grams of pot..
But is there another way to do it?
Obviously truth serums is a terrible idea. Probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard, except from toddlers..

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why does America give justice to all and freedom to those who can afford Lawyers? Our court system was designed to protect the citizens from being unjustly accused of a crime. Why do our laws help the accused and work against the victims? Evidence is hard to find and keep from being denied in court because of a good lawyer using the law to protect his accused. Why not use truth serums and lie detecting methods when there is an accused being questioned. Supreme Court says accused might unknowingly confess to the crime. The victims did not ask to be a victim. Should we use all means necessary to achieve justice?

Judicial Non-Punishment

SCROTUS treats it like an athletic contest where the criminal has just as much right to win as the prosecutor. The ruling class benefits if we are distracted by all the criminals turned loose by the thughugging courts.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does America give justice to all and freedom to those who can afford Lawyers? Our court system was designed to protect the citizens from being unjustly accused of a crime. Why do our laws help the accused and work against the victims? Evidence is hard to find and keep from being denied in court because of a good lawyer using the law to protect his accused. Why not use truth serums and lie detecting methods when there is an accused being questioned. Supreme Court says accused might unknowingly confess to the crime. The victims did not ask to be a victim. Should we use all means necessary to achieve justice?

advocate for vouchers, (good enough for public education, good enough for public defense.)

 

[ask why]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

Criminals have been convicted. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. The accused are not required to afford the prosecutor evidence of the crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Sounds like you are willing to make the accused a victim of lesser rights and protections. This solves nothing.

 

[BULLDOG]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

The laws aren't written to help a guilty person get off. They are written to give an innocent person a better chance of not being wrongly convicted. We are all innocent until we are proven guilty. I don't know about you, but if somebody accuses me of wrong doing, I don't want my rights removed just because somebody accused me.

 

[yiostheoy]

Why does America give justice to all and freedom to those who can afford Lawyers? Our court system was designed to protect the citizens from being unjustly accused of a crime. Why do our laws help the accused and work against the victims? Evidence is hard to find and keep from being denied in court because of a good lawyer using the law to protect his accused. Why not use truth serums and lie detecting methods when there is an accused being questioned. Supreme Court says accused might unknowingly confess to the crime. The victims did not ask to be a victim. Should we use all means necessary to achieve justice?

Spam bot.

Ignore list.

Another cockroach bites the dust.

 

[ask why]

[

use truth serums? Seriously?

 

[ask why]

Do you want to know the facts about life and death crimes or material theft or damage? The only person who knows the answers to why and when a crime happened is the person involved in the crime. The accused will not offer the truth or reasoning for their actions. So it is time to take action to get answers without destroying a innocent persons reputation. In private with both councils and authorities, questioning accused will get all information to prosecute or not as the evidence direct. The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused. So getting the facts, only an involved person could know, will give direction to officials to pursue prosecution or not. Change has to come in the legal system. It will not be popular and excepted by all. We need to stop crime, by opening fact finding opportunities and prosecuting the guilty.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you want to know the facts about life and death crimes or material theft or damage? The only person who knows the answers to why and when a crime happened is the person involved in the crime. The accused will not offer the truth or reasoning for their actions. So it is time to take action to get answers without destroying a innocent persons reputation. In private with both councils and authorities, questioning accused will get all information to prosecute or not as the evidence direct. The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused. So getting the facts, only an involved person could know, will give direction to officials to pursue prosecution or not. Change has to come in the legal system. It will not be popular and excepted by all. We need to stop crime, by opening fact finding opportunities and prosecuting the guilty.

I am sorry- I am sorry that what you are saying makes so little sense.

The Supreme Court in the 20's said confessions with truth methods are said while accused are not in control so not constitutional for accused.

What do you think you mean here? What is a 'truth method'?

You said you have suffered at the hands of lawyers- regarding criminal or civil matters? Do you know the difference?

If you are accused of a crime, you have Constitutional protections. That is the only reason why the Supreme Court rules on criminal cases- regarding whether Constitutional protections have been violated.

Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights? Specifically the 4th through the 6th Amendments.

And then read some of the Supreme Court cases regarding the Bill of Rights.

 

[ask why]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

The laws aren't written to help a guilty person get off. They are written to give an innocent person a better chance of not being wrongly convicted. We are all innocent until we are proven guilty. I don't know about you, but if somebody accuses me of wrong doing, I don't want my rights removed just because somebody accused me.

I do not want my rights waved either. If you have a better way to catch criminals and stop them, please advise. We can't sit by with our legal system being dominated by savvy lawyers getting criminals off from prosecution and doing disjustice to victims. There has to be a change, and it will upset everyone. Good, valued reasons pro and con can be debated. Change needs to come. A fortune is spent by communities fighting crime and corporations settling law suits. We need to protect an innocent that is being accused from being exposed until a case is going to trail. This means the media holds information from public until authorities release a pending trial. Officials need to use every tool available to collect facts, knowing all persons involved and lose and gains achieved, and damages. Something that would be great, but I doubt could happen in my life time. Lawyers never represent killers to get them free of prosecution.

 

[jillian]

Justice for all means you can have your day in court.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one is appointed to you. Your freedom comment is just off the wall.

The court system does not prevent you from being falsely accused, it is meant for the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt you did something illegal.

All attempts are made to preserve innocence, until guilt is proven.

Basically you have the legal system backwards. Welcome to America.

I'm an American tired of the waist in time and money around criminal acts being tried in our courts. Is there a better system? NO! Can it be improved? YES! Have I been a victim of savvy lawyers twisting the truth, making evidence be enaddmissable, YES! I may have explained my comments poorly. I'm asking why? Why do we have to give an accused the right of privacy? The victims had no choice. Does't matter if it was life and death, or material. The damage lives on in victims minds. Think of the reduction in crimes. When a suspect is questioned with both councils present in a secured room. Questions could be asked, and hopefully information about an incident will give authorities the facts they need to make a case. The accused can be questioned with nothing release to media until the officials know they have a case. There needs to be some restructuring in our laws to put law enforcement over high priced lawyers for the defense. Why do we let the wealthy defense lawyers control our court rooms. Do whats right, not what's written to help suspects beat a criminal charge.

the constitution doesn't apply to victims. it is intended to apply to the accused.

you think defendants should be divested of their rights to pacify someone's desire for vengeance?

 

[jillian]

use truth serums? Seriously?

i'll refer you to the fifth amendment.

but thanks for once again being 100% wrong.

now laugh and pretend you know something.

 

[ask why]

Our system is flawed. We have rich people that can get away with anything. Poor people will be locked up for a year for having 15 grams of pot..
But is there another way to do it?
Obviously truth serums is a terrible idea. Probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard, except from toddlers..

Big word stupid, I'm getting involved for the first time in my life talking about crime and law. Why do you think I'm referring to drugs?I'm thinking mostly about personal injury and white collar crimes. The criminal, correct accused, is the only person that knows the who, what, when and where the evidence and reason for the crime took place. Therefore, the best source is the accused. Using serums and detectors will get the facts. The officials can follow those facts to decide if there is a case. There are pros and cons that can be debated, change is needed and nobody wants to give for change. It needs to start somewhere. Anyone got a better idea, please advise.or maybe I should ask a toddler. He and his siblings will be running this country, by the time some decide to act.