CDZ Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?

[320 Years of History]

Regardless of whether you think he is guilty or innocent, it appears that Avery deserved a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately, he now has the burden of proving his innocence.

Why do some believe that police, prosecutors and judges are morally or ethically superior to other people? In my experience, people who seek this type of authority are more likely to abuse it.

Well, how many judges and district attorneys do you have direct personal experience with such that you know where their personal ethical bar lies, and that have not only sought those roles, but have also been appointed or elected to them? I'm asking because (1) if five folks seek the office of judge and the one who gets it is the one ethically resolute person among them, you'd be right, but that you would be right would have no real impact on the execution of justice, and (2) you'd need to be personally aware of a hell of a lot of attorneys (there are ~1.25 million of them in the U.S.) for your personal experience to be convincingly relevant with regard to the allusion you made.


One thing that militates for the public's perceiving judges and district attorneys having higher degrees of rectitude is the consequences such professionals face when they show they do not. For most people, ethical lapses have to reach the level of criminality before they must endure any substantive penalty for them. That's just not so with legal professionals who risk disbarment. Once that happens, their legal career is over and starting a comparably rewarding new one is, though not impossible, unlikely to happen.

All it takes is for a prospective employer to make a phone call to their prior employer asking just one question: "is the person rehireable?" The answer will be "no" and that will be that. That question is among the most important ones asked when employers vette prospective experienced-hire employees. That "no" answer is essentially the kiss of death, pretty effectively ensuring that one will not return to the ranks of professional employment, even in an unrelated field.

With regard to cops, well, I think your intimation is largely accurate.

• Ethics in Criminal Justice with an Emphasis in Policing and Corrections
• Police, culture, and ethics: toward an understanding and expansion of police culture and ethical research
• Ethical Conduct in Law Enforcement
• Enactments of Professionalism: A Study of Judges ' and Lawyers' Accounts of Ethics Civility in Litigation
• Ethical and Effective Policing
• (From 1947 - included here to provide temporal perspective) http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3456&context=jclc and http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3476&context=jclc

 

[Andylusion]

See I don't get this idea.
How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.
How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.
What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?
The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.
As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.
But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

First you need to start with this case which is proof of gross corruption. Feel free to defend the state.

Next you can stop trying to shift this on to me by asking the same question I asked in the OP.

My question to you is what do you need for 'evidence' ALL wrongly convicted people ALL the time for EVERY case that ever existed which if taken to its ultimate cnclusion is what you are implying.

Now if you want to stay in context with the OP it means 'WILLFULLY/KNOWINGLY wrongly convicted people' by the sytem.

Why do I first need to start with something that's already a given? That question is already answered. Asking it again, doesn't change anything.

But your implication that the entire system is corrupt... that is what your evidence doesn't prove.

Does one corrupt case, indicate that all cases are corrupt?

If one single case, prove that all cases are corrupt, then we can safely assume that every system in the entire world, and throughout all history, have all been corrupt.

If they are all corrupt... then what's the point of your post? Replacing our corrupt system with an entirely new corrupt system, simply means now we have a new corrupt system.

Why bother?

The position that seems to be being pushed here, is that one example proves the rule, no matter how many counter examples there are.

That's how people justify racism. Black people are all criminals. How do you know? I knew a black guy that was a thief, therefore they all are. Welcome to the KKK.

I'm not asking if that case was corrupt. That's beyond debate. The question is, how do you claim because one was, that all are? What are the ratios? How many correct verdicts and penalties have there been, relative to corrupt ones?

 

[KokomoJojo]

See I don't get this idea.
How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.
How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.
What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?
The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.
As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.
But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

First you need to start with this case which is proof of gross corruption. Feel free to defend the state.

Next you can stop trying to shift this on to me by asking the same question I asked in the OP.

My question to you is what do you need for 'evidence' ALL wrongly convicted people ALL the time for EVERY case that ever existed which if taken to its ultimate cnclusion is what you are implying.

Now if you want to stay in context with the OP it means 'WILLFULLY/KNOWINGLY wrongly convicted people' by the sytem.

Why do I first need to start with something that's already a given? That question is already answered. Asking it again, doesn't change anything.

But your implication that the entire system is corrupt... that is what your evidence doesn't prove.

Does one corrupt case, indicate that all cases are corrupt?

If one single case, prove that all cases are corrupt, then we can safely assume that every system in the entire world, and throughout all history, have all been corrupt.

If they are all corrupt... then what's the point of your post? Replacing our corrupt system with an entirely new corrupt system, simply means now we have a new corrupt system.

Why bother?

The position that seems to be being pushed here, is that one example proves the rule, no matter how many counter examples there are.

That's how people justify racism. Black people are all criminals. How do you know? I knew a black guy that was a thief, therefore they all are. Welcome to the KKK.

I'm not asking if that case was corrupt. That's beyond debate. The question is, how do you claim because one was, that all are? What are the ratios? How many correct verdicts and penalties have there been, relative to corrupt ones?

well despite that you argument is largely strawman and has already been answered though you for some reason do not seem to recognize it, here is a bone for you to chew on; Injustice and corruption is built into the system, starting with 'summary judgment'. Do you knowand can you explain why?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Regardless of whether you think he is guilty or innocent, it appears that Avery deserved a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately, he now has the burden of proving his innocence.

Why do some believe that police, prosecutors and judges are morally or ethically superior to other people? In my experience, people who seek this type of authority are more likely to abuse it.

Well, how many judges and district attorneys do you have direct personal experience with such that you know where their personal ethical bar lies, and that have not only sought those roles, but have also been appointed or elected to them? I'm asking because (1) if five folks seek the office of judge and the one who gets it is the one ethically resolute person among them, you'd be right, but that you would be right would have no real impact on the execution of justice, and (2) you'd need to be personally aware of a hell of a lot of attorneys (there are ~1.25 million of them in the U.S.) for your personal experience to be convincingly relevant with regard to the allusion you made.


One thing that militates for the public's perceiving judges and district attorneys having higher degrees of rectitude is the consequences such professionals face when they show they do not. For most people, ethical lapses have to reach the level of criminality before they must endure any substantive penalty for them. That's just not so with legal professionals who risk disbarment. Once that happens, their legal career is over and starting a comparably rewarding new one is, though not impossible, unlikely to happen.

All it takes is for a prospective employer to make a phone call to their prior employer asking just one question: "is the person rehireable?" The answer will be "no" and that will be that. That question is among the most important ones asked when employers vette prospective experienced-hire employees. That "no" answer is essentially the kiss of death, pretty effectively ensuring that one will not return to the ranks of professional employment, even in an unrelated field.

With regard to cops, well, I think your intimation is largely accurate.

• Ethics in Criminal Justice with an Emphasis in Policing and Corrections
• Police, culture, and ethics: toward an understanding and expansion of police culture and ethical research
• Ethical Conduct in Law Enforcement
• Enactments of Professionalism: A Study of Judges ' and Lawyers' Accounts of Ethics Civility in Litigation
• Ethical and Effective Policing
• (From 1947 - included here to provide temporal perspective) http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3456&context=jclc and http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3476&context=jclc

I am not going to speak for woodie, however with regard to your post which frankly did not address what you highlighted, you do not need to know even so much as one of them personally, only to understand the law, due process and the courts etc, and review the results of their work or lack thereof. Ken Kratz the prosecutor in the Avery and dassey cases should have been drawn and quartered.....very slowly along with everyone else involved in the investigation and prosecution of those cases all the way to the top of the hill in wisconsin.

 

[320 Years of History]

Regardless of whether you think he is guilty or innocent, it appears that Avery deserved a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Unfortunately, he now has the burden of proving his innocence.

Why do some believe that police, prosecutors and judges are morally or ethically superior to other people? In my experience, people who seek this type of authority are more likely to abuse it.

Well, how many judges and district attorneys do you have direct personal experience with such that you know where their personal ethical bar lies, and that have not only sought those roles, but have also been appointed or elected to them? I'm asking because (1) if five folks seek the office of judge and the one who gets it is the one ethically resolute person among them, you'd be right, but that you would be right would have no real impact on the execution of justice, and (2) you'd need to be personally aware of a hell of a lot of attorneys (there are ~1.25 million of them in the U.S.) for your personal experience to be convincingly relevant with regard to the allusion you made.


One thing that militates for the public's perceiving judges and district attorneys having higher degrees of rectitude is the consequences such professionals face when they show they do not. For most people, ethical lapses have to reach the level of criminality before they must endure any substantive penalty for them. That's just not so with legal professionals who risk disbarment. Once that happens, their legal career is over and starting a comparably rewarding new one is, though not impossible, unlikely to happen.

All it takes is for a prospective employer to make a phone call to their prior employer asking just one question: "is the person rehireable?" The answer will be "no" and that will be that. That question is among the most important ones asked when employers vette prospective experienced-hire employees. That "no" answer is essentially the kiss of death, pretty effectively ensuring that one will not return to the ranks of professional employment, even in an unrelated field.

With regard to cops, well, I think your intimation is largely accurate.

• Ethics in Criminal Justice with an Emphasis in Policing and Corrections
• Police, culture, and ethics: toward an understanding and expansion of police culture and ethical research
• Ethical Conduct in Law Enforcement
• Enactments of Professionalism: A Study of Judges ' and Lawyers' Accounts of Ethics Civility in Litigation
• Ethical and Effective Policing
• (From 1947 - included here to provide temporal perspective) http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3456&context=jclc and http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3476&context=jclc

I am not going to speak for woodie, however with regard to your post which frankly did not address what you highlighted, you do not need to know even so much as one of them personally, only to understand the law, due process and the courts etc, and review the results of their work or lack thereof. Ken Kratz the prosecutor in the Avery and dassey cases should have been drawn and quartered.....very slowly along with everyone else involved in the investigation and prosecution of those cases all the way to the top of the hill in wisconsin.

Red:
The second paragraph of my post specifically speaks to why some people perceive judges, lawyers and cops as having or demonstrating greater ethical standards than folks who aren't in those careers.

You are correct that I didn't address the ethics of people who seek to be cops or attorneys (judges are, nearly always if not always, also attorneys) because I'm not aware of any scholarly studies pertaining to such folks. I provided multiple references that in part or overall address the ethics of cops and attorneys, that is, folks who actually have those positions, rather than folks who merely have sought them. Since the content in those reference sources wasn't gathered, analyzed, or written by me, I just posted links to them.


Brown:
It's laughable that you wrote the words "common sense" as part of this discussion. "Common sense" is what tells one the world is flat. So for whatever good "common sense" is, it's far from infallible. Indeed, it's questionable how often common sense is sensible.

I have some awareness of the law and I've read the transcripts and court opinions pertaining to some cases, but not by any means so many cases as would constitute "the tip of the iceberg." That's not surprising as I'm a CPA and consultant not an attorney.

That said, of the cases I've read, I've come by some that I don't agree with the decision and/or arguments given by one or the other side. I've read of instances wherein someone's ethics struck me as being "on vacation" at one or more points in the course of a matter, but that isn't my observation for the majority of cases with which I'm familiar. (It's worth noting that the ethical behavior, or lack thereof, of the attorneys and cops involved were not ever the reasons for which I read a court decision or trial transcript.)

It seems to me that merely saying judges, prosecutors and cops are, in the main, unethical needs more substantiation than "common sense," or one's mere attestation to as much based largely on such sense, can provide. "Common sense" is a useful thing that's quite applicable to common matters. The intricacy of the theory and practice of jurisprudence doesn't strike me as common at all: the process by which we establish, analyze, enforce and arbit our laws is not commonly encountered, considered or known by most common people. So while "common sense" is useful for many things, determining what's right and wrong as goes the execution of justice is among those things for which it is not useful; some sort of sense that is less common than is "common sense" must be used.

Nowadays most people die of a sort of creeping common sense, and discover when it is too late that the only things one never regrets are one's mistakes.
― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
​

Pink:
Well, that's your opinion, and I haven't seen the television show or read the testimony, so tell me the following things about your opinion:

• Is your opinion based on the 10 hours of the Making a Murderer series, or have you read the tome that is the trial transcript and, with that full awareness of the case come to that conclusion? If the former, is it possible that your opinion does not take into consideration events and deeds not reflected in the on air program content, which doesn't include even 1% of the testimony of the Avery trial
• What do you think, as specific deeds or sequences of specific acts, the prosecutors in the Avery case did warranting that s/he be drawn and quartered?

Blue:
None of the blue text was made that way by me.

 

[Unkotare]

False premise BS troll thread.

 

[Andylusion]

See I don't get this idea.
How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.
How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.
What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?
The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.
As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.
But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

First you need to start with this case which is proof of gross corruption. Feel free to defend the state.

Next you can stop trying to shift this on to me by asking the same question I asked in the OP.

My question to you is what do you need for 'evidence' ALL wrongly convicted people ALL the time for EVERY case that ever existed which if taken to its ultimate cnclusion is what you are implying.

Now if you want to stay in context with the OP it means 'WILLFULLY/KNOWINGLY wrongly convicted people' by the sytem.

Why do I first need to start with something that's already a given? That question is already answered. Asking it again, doesn't change anything.

But your implication that the entire system is corrupt... that is what your evidence doesn't prove.

Does one corrupt case, indicate that all cases are corrupt?

If one single case, prove that all cases are corrupt, then we can safely assume that every system in the entire world, and throughout all history, have all been corrupt.

If they are all corrupt... then what's the point of your post? Replacing our corrupt system with an entirely new corrupt system, simply means now we have a new corrupt system.

Why bother?

The position that seems to be being pushed here, is that one example proves the rule, no matter how many counter examples there are.

That's how people justify racism. Black people are all criminals. How do you know? I knew a black guy that was a thief, therefore they all are. Welcome to the KKK.

I'm not asking if that case was corrupt. That's beyond debate. The question is, how do you claim because one was, that all are? What are the ratios? How many correct verdicts and penalties have there been, relative to corrupt ones?

well despite that you argument is largely strawman and has already been answered though you for some reason do not seem to recognize it, here is a bone for you to chew on; Injustice and corruption is built into the system, starting with 'summary judgment'. Do you knowand can you explain why?

You are not even attempting to make a case. But instead claim it's a strawman. Which indicates that you have already lost the argument.

As for summary judgment, I don't see anything corrupt in the practice.

A summary judgement is used when the material facts of the case are not in dispute. So if you and I, go into court over and issue, and we both completely agree on exactly what happened. There is no dispute between us, as to the facts of the case.

In that situation, there is no need for a trial to determine the facts.

Then it goes to what we know about the law, when applied to the facts. If the law is explicitly clear to what the resolution of the case, then there is no need for a trial to determine the resolution.

Thus, without the need to determine the facts, and without a need to determine the resolution, the court can simply pass a summery judgement.

Your solution, I assume, is to remove summery judgement, which would clog our courts with endless trials for foregone conclusions. The justice system is slow enough as it is.

Moreover, corrupt people in the system can abuse the trial system, just as much as summery judgements. I don't see that this makes the case that corruption is built in.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is a huge difference between PROVEN wrongful convictions which are the ONLY ones you see and the greater majority that will remain forever unproven because there is NO REMEDY for those who never have the opportunity to get a retrial as a result of the corruption of law by corrupt government.

Avery's Jury conviction for the crime of rape is PROVEN, he was found INNOCENT AFTER 18 YEARS IN THE JOINT, and the corruption in Averys second case is also PROVEN if you look at the evidence.

And again, because you simply cannot deal with the valid point, A SINGLE CASE PROVES NOTHING ABOUT THE SYSTEM.

Your initial assertion is that the system itself is corrupt beyond salvaging. That is a massive assertion that is NOT PROVED or even evidenced by a single corrupted case - PERIOD.

Avery paid 1/2 a million for his defense with a couple of the best attorneys that could be had who did an excellent job defending him btw, and a compliment like that is rare coming from me, yet he went back to prison on false charges a second time, that is case 1 and case 2 is the dassey kid who they also railroaded into prison on completely bullshit charges.

See above.

If you want to discuss weather or not a specific case was corrupted and/or if there is anything that can be done for future cases like them then say so and drop the original premise for this thread. Otherwise, your posts have no point at all. They ignore the other 70,000 convictions that were absent corruption.

But your solution only works in the imagination not in practice as the system has proven.

The 'system' has proven no such thing at all and you have not shown that it does. What you have shown is that it is not perfect.

Sorry buddy but perfect aint happening ever.

1) On one hand you admit to there being several PROVEN CASES of wrongful conviction and gave a percentage.

Yes

2) You then go on to characterize the corruption as 'not a problem' first because it is just a small percentage and at the same time pretending there is no real problem by arguing that I only put up a single case and it is hollywood drama all carrying the meaning it is of little importance, all is well no need to be concerned.

No, that is an outright lie about what I said. i actually said that there was a clear problem. What YOU assert though was not only the problem but a gross miss-characterization of the justice system in general and is a premise that is way off the mark.

It looks like you are trying to get on both sides of the argument at the same time yet leave people with the idea its no real concern as if it does not count that in each case both the person accused and their families are destroyed with no recourse?

I do not agree with anyone who would promote the idea that the system is corrupt but its ok.

Again, you have shown NOTHING that pertains to the system at all. What you have complained about are single cases.

You dont seem to agree with the idea that the system should be anything but perfect. We do not live in a Utopian world and to expect anything to be perfect is lunacy.

There are plenty of cases to be had and provided to prove the point to bar card holders and anyone with moderate legal experience. I do not know where you stand in legal experience but it appears you are posting without knowledge of the case for starters since the documentary has NO NARRATION just what the people involved said and court proceedings.

It cant get more non-hollywood than that so how can you paint it as hollywood?

Seriously? 320 has already pointed this out to you. 1% of the case is there. Lack of narration does not suddenly make it not a Hollywood production.

Another huge gross example of state corruption is the Richard Fine series of cases, and Richard Fine is an ex attorney general and professor of law, NOT SOME IDIOT as you portray and paint the people, meaning he taught law in the university before he too was 'accused' and as a result of the nature of the case (against the state) has been destroyed and is presently trapped in the legal web of terror and destruction.

If you or anyone else feels they can defend the US, the governments et all who operate under the same legal system with similar results feel free to do so, but please avoid wrongfully characterizing the arguments I am making which is mostly what I have seen so far, and take a little time to review the evidence presented in the documentary which Avery's attorney points out (correctly imo) that it fairly portrays the proper evidence on both sides that would ultimately be used to decide the case.

See the first comment. Your posts have literally zero to do with your assertion. You claim an entire system is corrupted to the point that it is beyond salvaging and then do not post a single thing about the system.

 

[KokomoJojo]

There is a huge difference between PROVEN wrongful convictions which are the ONLY ones you see and the greater majority that will remain forever unproven because there is NO REMEDY for those who never have the opportunity to get a retrial as a result of the corruption of law by corrupt government.

Avery's Jury conviction for the crime of rape is PROVEN, he was found INNOCENT AFTER 18 YEARS IN THE JOINT, and the corruption in Averys second case is also PROVEN if you look at the evidence.

And again, because you simply cannot deal with the valid point, A SINGLE CASE PROVES NOTHING ABOUT THE SYSTEM.

Your initial assertion is that the system itself is corrupt beyond salvaging. That is a massive assertion that is NOT PROVED or even evidenced by a single corrupted case - PERIOD.

Avery paid 1/2 a million for his defense with a couple of the best attorneys that could be had who did an excellent job defending him btw, and a compliment like that is rare coming from me, yet he went back to prison on false charges a second time, that is case 1 and case 2 is the dassey kid who they also railroaded into prison on completely bullshit charges.

See above.

If you want to discuss weather or not a specific case was corrupted and/or if there is anything that can be done for future cases like them then say so and drop the original premise for this thread. Otherwise, your posts have no point at all. They ignore the other 70,000 convictions that were absent corruption.

But your solution only works in the imagination not in practice as the system has proven.

The 'system' has proven no such thing at all and you have not shown that it does. What you have shown is that it is not perfect.

Sorry buddy but perfect aint happening ever.

1) On one hand you admit to there being several PROVEN CASES of wrongful conviction and gave a percentage.

Yes

2) You then go on to characterize the corruption as 'not a problem' first because it is just a small percentage and at the same time pretending there is no real problem by arguing that I only put up a single case and it is hollywood drama all carrying the meaning it is of little importance, all is well no need to be concerned.

No, that is an outright lie about what I said. i actually said that there was a clear problem. What YOU assert though was not only the problem but a gross miss-characterization of the justice system in general and is a premise that is way off the mark.

It looks like you are trying to get on both sides of the argument at the same time yet leave people with the idea its no real concern as if it does not count that in each case both the person accused and their families are destroyed with no recourse?

I do not agree with anyone who would promote the idea that the system is corrupt but its ok.

Again, you have shown NOTHING that pertains to the system at all. What you have complained about are single cases.

You dont seem to agree with the idea that the system should be anything but perfect. We do not live in a Utopian world and to expect anything to be perfect is lunacy.

There are plenty of cases to be had and provided to prove the point to bar card holders and anyone with moderate legal experience. I do not know where you stand in legal experience but it appears you are posting without knowledge of the case for starters since the documentary has NO NARRATION just what the people involved said and court proceedings.

It cant get more non-hollywood than that so how can you paint it as hollywood?

Seriously? 320 has already pointed this out to you. 1% of the case is there. Lack of narration does not suddenly make it not a Hollywood production.

Another huge gross example of state corruption is the Richard Fine series of cases, and Richard Fine is an ex attorney general and professor of law, NOT SOME IDIOT as you portray and paint the people, meaning he taught law in the university before he too was 'accused' and as a result of the nature of the case (against the state) has been destroyed and is presently trapped in the legal web of terror and destruction.

If you or anyone else feels they can defend the US, the governments et all who operate under the same legal system with similar results feel free to do so, but please avoid wrongfully characterizing the arguments I am making which is mostly what I have seen so far, and take a little time to review the evidence presented in the documentary which Avery's attorney points out (correctly imo) that it fairly portrays the proper evidence on both sides that would ultimately be used to decide the case.

See the first comment. Your posts have literally zero to do with your assertion. You claim an entire system is corrupted to the point that it is beyond salvaging and then do not post a single thing about the system.

Claiming I referred to a single case is a lie.
I posted several cases in support of and they are part and party to my assertions, one in fact that involves the whole state of california and the legal system at large by a university law professor and x-attorney general and have therefore fully rebutted your naked assertions despite you simply blew it off in pretense I never posted it. (see above 'one case' lie) If you feel you have a valid counter claim that disposes of my claim feel free to prove your point. You are making a boat load of claims all that are naked assertion and not a shred of anything to back up those assertions. For instance your 1% number, as if we are to think there is no problem and the system is fine because its 1% despite you posted nothing to back up your assertion that 1% is fine and dandy and certainly does nothing to counter my broken legal system argument. Everything is not fine. If the system worked fine these things would not happen at all or they would be extremely rare to the tune of .0001%. If that is fine and you think the system works then you be the 1% who is accused and railroaded into prison with life sentence and no chance of parole and come back and tell us its fine. Lets see what you say then. Beyond that its pointless for me to argue the matter with you if the best you can throw out here is denial and incredulity, and/or failure to educate yourself regarding materials already provided.

What YOU assert though was not only the problem but a gross miss-characterization of the justice system in general

You have posted nothing to support much less prove your claims.
Sorry but you leave me no choice but to point out your failings feel free.

 

[KokomoJojo]

As for summary judgment, I don't see anything corrupt in the practice.

Do you or do you not have a right allegedly protected by the constitution to a trial by jury, yes___ or no____

 

[KokomoJojo]

I am not going to speak for woodie, however with regard to your post which frankly did not address what you highlighted, you do not need to know even so much as one of them personally, only to understand the law, due process and the courts etc, and review the results of their work or lack thereof. Ken Kratz the prosecutor in the Avery and dassey cases should have been drawn and quartered.....very slowly along with everyone else involved in the investigation and prosecution of those cases all the way to the top of the hill in wisconsin.

Brown:
It's laughable that you wrote the words "common sense" as part of this discussion. "Common sense" is what tells one the world is flat. So for whatever good "common sense" is, it's far from infallible. Indeed, it's questionable how often common sense is sensible.

(It's worth noting that the ethical behavior, or lack thereof, of the attorneys and cops involved were not ever the reasons for which I read a court decision or trial transcript.)

Pink:
Well, that's your opinion, and I haven't seen the television show or read the testimony, so tell me the following things about your opinion:

• Is your opinion based on the 10 hours of the Making a Murderer series, or have you read the tome that is the trial transcript and, with that full awareness of the case come to that conclusion? If the former, is it possible that your opinion does not take into consideration events and deeds not reflected in the on air program content, which doesn't include even 1% of the testimony of the Avery trial
• What do you think, as specific deeds or sequences of specific acts, the prosecutors in the Avery case did warranting that s/he be drawn and quartered?

Brown, I do not recall using the word common sense however the prosecutor did several times in the conviction of avery when he did not have hard evidence or the evidence was faulty. this is corruption since their job is to determine guilt not rubber stamp it.

Violet, the OP centers around and is mainly focused on individuals v government and more specifically where the state losing a case would cause the government to lose substantial revenue. These cases are the ones you want to red where you wont need to spend a whole lot of time working to wrap your mind around the picture painted in the OP.

Green: Is your opinion based on the 10 hours of the Making a Murderer series, or have you read the tome that is the trial transcript and, with that full awareness of the case come to that conclusion?

After watching Strang and Buting in action combining with their supporting arguments that the producers did an excellent job including all the 'pertinent' evidence that would have decided the case on both sides of the argument, in combination with reading some transcripts and hearing some depositions along the live testimony in court, I have read seen and heard enough evidence to determine avery is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

What do you think, as specific deeds or sequences of specific acts, the prosecutors in the Avery case did warranting that s/he be drawn and quartered?

He and his cronies bleeding everything to the press claiming avery is guilty for starters and worse creating this huge horror drama in the public eye that was not true. His legal tactics where conviction is the goal not truth. This goes all the way and beyond the appellate court starting with the sheriffs department all the way up.

You really need to take the time to watch the series, here is an excerpt.

thats why this is such a hot potato its filmed right in the court room and we can see how everyone handled it from the investigation right up to the appellate court.

and take note Kratz states this points to "one individual that did the crime", yet two people are in prison for life for the same crime that he claimed only one person did Avery.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Does one corrupt case, indicate that all cases are corrupt?

when something as glaring and obvious as this particular case makes it to the appellate court and nothing is done its a systemic problem. hence the citing of this case in support of the OP.

states evidence: the key with averys dna? well it only had averys dna on it.

Of course I assume people realize that is not possible?

This is just the ice breaker that establishes unequivocally and undeniably the corruption we are faced with in this country. Now that we established beynd a shadow of a doubt the existence of the corruption based on all the evidence there is no longer any doubt to its large scale existence. Name a state I can do this all day starting with california since its handy and I already posted some info on it.

 

[jwoodie]

See I don't get this idea.
How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.
How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.
What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?
The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.
As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.
But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

First you need to start with this case which is proof of gross corruption. Feel free to defend the state.

Next you can stop trying to shift this on to me by asking the same question I asked in the OP.

My question to you is what do you need for 'evidence' ALL wrongly convicted people ALL the time for EVERY case that ever existed which if taken to its ultimate cnclusion is what you are implying.

Now if you want to stay in context with the OP it means 'WILLFULLY/KNOWINGLY wrongly convicted people' by the sytem.

Why do I first need to start with something that's already a given? That question is already answered. Asking it again, doesn't change anything.

But your implication that the entire system is corrupt... that is what your evidence doesn't prove.

Does one corrupt case, indicate that all cases are corrupt?

If one single case, prove that all cases are corrupt, then we can safely assume that every system in the entire world, and throughout all history, have all been corrupt.

If they are all corrupt... then what's the point of your post? Replacing our corrupt system with an entirely new corrupt system, simply means now we have a new corrupt system.

Why bother?

The position that seems to be being pushed here, is that one example proves the rule, no matter how many counter examples there are.

That's how people justify racism. Black people are all criminals. How do you know? I knew a black guy that was a thief, therefore they all are. Welcome to the KKK.

I'm not asking if that case was corrupt. That's beyond debate. The question is, how do you claim because one was, that all are? What are the ratios? How many correct verdicts and penalties have there been, relative to corrupt ones?

The point you are missing is that concentrated power always leads to corruption. That is why the U.S. Constitution was so ingenuous; it allowed citizens to govern themselves at the lowest possible level. (Just because it didn't resolve the inherited problem of slavery does not diminish this fact.)

Even though many sheriffs, prosecutors and judges are individually elected, an unholy political alliance between them is more the norm than is the exception. As a result, maintaining high rates of arrests, convictions and harsh sentences are the best way to keep one's position or aspire to a higher one.

As a result, a pernicious system of presumed guilt has developed. Once a likely suspect has been selected, the crime investigation frequently turns into a single minded crusade to prove that person's guilt. Any evidence that might support this presumption is magnified, while exculpatory evidence is often ignored or discarded.

Thus the presumption of innocence can be turned on its head: Prosecutors are concerned with convictions rather than guilt, while Public Defenders are concerned with probable guilt rather than disproving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Private defense attorneys are castigated as unfair tools of the rich, even though many of the procedural rules favor the prosecution.

The last line of defense against prosecutorial misconduct is jury nullification (i.e., coming to a just verdict). However, this is such an affront to those in positions of authority that the good sense of the jury can be prevented or overturned by the judge.

P.S. Your analogy to racism is self-contradictory, if individual acts can never be used to indicate a pattern.

 

[KokomoJojo]

False premise BS troll thread.

Oooouuuuh! another drive by poster! Meaningless.

 

[Unkotare]

False premise BS troll thread.

Oooouuuuh! another drive by poster! Meaningless.

A false premise is a false premise.

 

[KokomoJojo]

False premise BS troll thread.

Oooouuuuh! another drive by poster! Meaningless.

A false premise is a false premise.

just because 'you' said so! right!

So you didnt get it?

I am sure it is in your mind and makes perfect sense to you but to the rest of us who need reasoned arguments its nothing more than a meaningless drive by posting.

Feel free to prove that the legal system is filled with honest joes. waiting.

 

[Unkotare]

False premise BS troll thread.

Oooouuuuh! another drive by poster! Meaningless.

A false premise is a false premise.

just because 'you' said so! right!

So you didnt get it?

I am sure it is in your mind and makes perfect sense to you but to the rest of us who need reasoned arguments its nothing more than a meaningless drive by posting.

Feel free to prove that the legal system is filled with honest joes. waiting.

You've got it completely backwards.

 

[Andylusion]

See I don't get this idea.
How many convictions for crime have there been in the last 50 years.
How many wrongful convictions have there been the last 50 years.
What ratio of correct convictions, to wrong convictions, have there been?
The people that I talk to, have absolutely no idea how many convictions there have been, nor how many were later found wrong, let alone what ratio there is between the two.
As near as I can tell, the only evidence they have that our system is absolutely corrupt and un-repairable, is that there have been some wrongly convicted people.
But if you focus exclusively on only those cases of wrong convictions.... then you would have to conclude that there is no system on the face of the planet, anywhere, in any culture, in any country, throughout all human history, that was not absolutely corrupt.

And if you conclude that there has never been a non-corrupt justice system.... then what system would you adopt to replace the one we have?

Do you have an answer?

First you need to start with this case which is proof of gross corruption. Feel free to defend the state.

Next you can stop trying to shift this on to me by asking the same question I asked in the OP.

My question to you is what do you need for 'evidence' ALL wrongly convicted people ALL the time for EVERY case that ever existed which if taken to its ultimate cnclusion is what you are implying.

Now if you want to stay in context with the OP it means 'WILLFULLY/KNOWINGLY wrongly convicted people' by the sytem.

Why do I first need to start with something that's already a given? That question is already answered. Asking it again, doesn't change anything.

But your implication that the entire system is corrupt... that is what your evidence doesn't prove.

Does one corrupt case, indicate that all cases are corrupt?

If one single case, prove that all cases are corrupt, then we can safely assume that every system in the entire world, and throughout all history, have all been corrupt.

If they are all corrupt... then what's the point of your post? Replacing our corrupt system with an entirely new corrupt system, simply means now we have a new corrupt system.

Why bother?

The position that seems to be being pushed here, is that one example proves the rule, no matter how many counter examples there are.

That's how people justify racism. Black people are all criminals. How do you know? I knew a black guy that was a thief, therefore they all are. Welcome to the KKK.

I'm not asking if that case was corrupt. That's beyond debate. The question is, how do you claim because one was, that all are? What are the ratios? How many correct verdicts and penalties have there been, relative to corrupt ones?

The point you are missing is that concentrated power always leads to corruption. That is why the U.S. Constitution was so ingenuous; it allowed citizens to govern themselves at the lowest possible level. (Just because it didn't resolve the inherited problem of slavery does not diminish this fact.)

Even though many sheriffs, prosecutors and judges are individually elected, an unholy political alliance between them is more the norm than is the exception. As a result, maintaining high rates of arrests, convictions and harsh sentences are the best way to keep one's position or aspire to a higher one.

As a result, a pernicious system of presumed guilt has developed. Once a likely suspect has been selected, the crime investigation frequently turns into a single minded crusade to prove that person's guilt. Any evidence that might support this presumption is magnified, while exculpatory evidence is often ignored or discarded.

Thus the presumption of innocence can be turned on its head: Prosecutors are concerned with convictions rather than guilt, while Public Defenders are concerned with probable guilt rather than disproving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Private defense attorneys are castigated as unfair tools of the rich, even though many of the procedural rules favor the prosecution.

The last line of defense against prosecutorial misconduct is jury nullification (i.e., coming to a just verdict). However, this is such an affront to those in positions of authority that the good sense of the jury can be prevented or overturned by the judge.

P.S. Your analogy to racism is self-contradictory, if individual acts can never be used to indicate a pattern.

While I disagree, I'm not going to argue over an analogy. Moving on...

Yes, I agree power does have a corrupting influence, and I also agree that the constitution was ingenuous, and yes citizens should be allowed to govern themselves at the lowest level.

Are there some 'unholy alliances'. Sure. My issue here is, in what possible system can you ever create where there is no concentration of power, and zero corruption, and yet still have an effective justice system?

Can't do it.

I'm all in favor of investigating, and of people being more vigilant in removing bad officials. But it's not a problem of inherent corruption in the system.

 

[Andylusion]

As for summary judgment, I don't see anything corrupt in the practice.

Do you or do you not have a right allegedly protected by the constitution to a trial by jury, yes___ or no____

To me that post shows a lack of being informed.

Summery Judgements are only used in civil cases. Not criminal cases. If you are accused of a crime.... You must have a trial by jury. They do not give summery judgments in criminal cases.

There is nothing corrupt about this.

 

[KokomoJojo]

As for summary judgment, I don't see anything corrupt in the practice.

Do you or do you not have a right allegedly protected by the constitution to a trial by jury, yes___ or no____

To me that post shows a lack of being informed.
Summery Judgements are only used in civil cases. Not criminal cases. If you are accused of a crime.... You must have a trial by jury. They do not give summery judgments in criminal cases.
There is nothing corrupt about this.

To me your post shows lack of comprehension since I never said implied or so much as thought it was criminal and the captain obvious explanation was a waste of font ink.

Shifting and limiting the subject to criminal is your strawman response.

The point remains that you promote unconstitutional judicial proceedings.