Criminal Justice

[Janus]

Is anybody else disgusted with the legal and criminal justice system in this country? to name a few outrages, you have the exclusionary rule, the right to a trial by jury, habeus corpus, and disputed over the death penalty. Im not even going to mention the civil court system, as that will open up a whole big can of worms.

[Yanny]

Taking this issue by issue…

exclusionary rule

Never heard of it. I’m not the most schooled in the legal system.

the right to a trial by jury

By far, the best way to insure a fair trial that is possible. I believe it should be 100% written in stone that no trial in the United States or under our juristiction will ever be tried by anyone else but a fair impartial jury of your peers.

the death penalty

I am against the Death Penalty. I don’t see how we justify killing by killing the person who did the killing. Lock em up for life.

[bossk]

I don’t see the outrages you’re associating with the topics brought up, Janus, maybe I’m uninformed. What’s wrong with a trial by jury? And I sort of like be protected from unreasonable searches (exclusionary rule). I really don’t see a problem with being allowed out of prision if one is imprisioned unjustly (habeas corpus). Is there some widespread violation of these judical rights that I’m not aware of or something?

[Janus]

Ok Yanny, ill break it down for you, the exclusionary rule basically means that if any evidence is obtained unlawfully (i.e. an illegal search or seizure), it is inadmissable in court. Along with habeus corpus, this is theoretically a good idea, protecting civilians from undue police agression. the problem is that this often works against justice rather than for it. for instance, if a confession is obtained from a defendent, without them having been read their miranda rights, then it is inadmissable, and the defendent may summarily be found innocent. this is unacceptable.

also, i am against the 4th amendment (prohibiting unlawful searches and seizures). it is a good idea in theory, but the same problems arise. i would rather people be subject to ridiculous searches and seizures than not, because evidence found could make the difference in court. and lets face it, police are not the bad guys people make them out to be. those bad ones are few and far between in the scheme of things.

habeus corpus has a similar problem. say the police are fully aware of a drugdealer, or murderer, or any other major criminal, but they dont have sufficient evidence to arrest them, even though they fully know of their criminal status, they should be allowed to arrest them. i would rather see innocent people sit in jail, than guilty roam free.

The problem with trial by jury is incompetence, and is not necessarily the best way to ensure a fair trial. i would suggest to you that a panel of judges would be more effective at coming up with an accurate and appropriate verdict. much like the supreme court, which works quite well. i think there is less of a chance of unfair trials than the current system under juries. juries are frequently incompetent, the people making them up have a vastly insufficient understanding of the intricacies of the law, they dont understand the finer points of the laws. they are more prone to their personal feelings affecting the case, as even with the voire dire, there are often still people who are not impartial jurors. they are more prone to letting an impression about a defendent affect their judgement as well. judges are more experienced, and fully understand the law. in addition, the juries are prone to giving ridiculous verdicts (briefly tapping into civil cases, millions of dollars for a burn, or emotional distress) many times, judges must use their own judgement to reduce the verdict to reasonable terms. why not bypass the jury altogether? with a panel of judges, you get a similar splash of viewpoints as a jury, but with people who understand better the duty they have, and what to do.

The death penalty would be a very significant deterrent if allowed to operate at its full potential. think about being a criminal, considering a crime. would you be more or less willing to commit that crime if you knew that if you were caught, youd be killed? i think it would deter many people if the death penalty was national, more easily obtained, and actually carried out (very rarely are executions carried out, even though there are many people on death row). locking people up for life poses a number of problems. to name a few, it costs money to house these people, taxpayers money. they need to pay for this criminal’s life now. there is always the possibilty of him getting out, whether by pardon or escape. and facilities are required to house these people. that is a vast waste of land, simply to hold criminals?

what i have just written is also in response to your post, bossk.

[Jazz]

A buddy of mine did a report on the death penalty and discovered in some cases it was more costly to punish with the death penalty than to imprisson for life. I dont know if it deturs crime, some polls say yes and some say no, I dont care if it does.

Dont get the wrong idea though, I am a very staunch supported of the death penalty.

[bossk]

Alright, you can spend a week or more in jail awaiting a preliminary hearing so that we can catch every one of those evil-doers, Janus, but I’m not going to. Untill you do, I don’t think you really have room to talk (just youing your own logic, see Halo thread).

As for the 4th amendment, it was designed to prevent individuals from being convicted with evidence that may have been planted or otherwise ill-gotten. If a police force is too incompetent to obtain a search warrant you’re not going to take my rights away so they can convict some dumb shmuck who’s growing pot in his closet, it’s just not worth it.

You say a trial by jury is prone to incompetence and misunderstanding; I say that a jury of peers is far better than a panel of judges, first of all, becuase it is a jury of peers, that is people of similar circumstance. A jury of peers is most likely to understand a defendant, a panel of judges are appointed by governing fat-cats, hence the common person is not likely to become a judge. That means you have a bunch of people who are going to look down their noses at most defendants becuase they are of a lower status, that’s just the way our society works.

Your comments on the death penalty are absolutely ridiculus and border on human rights violations. As a society we have determined that human life is something pretty special, and you can’t just go around killing people convicted of just any crime. Why not insititute roving bands of peasants weilding pitchforks and torches beating and killing people instead of having a court system? Secondly, in order to make the death penalty national you’d need to ammend the consititution, good luck with that.

Are you purposefully supporting turning the US into an authoritarian state with the power to do pretty much whatever it pleases without the input of the people, becuase that’s basicly what your getting at. Imagine a group gaining power on the national level and appointing judges that will do whatever said group pleases. They could then theoreticly make people disappear; charge them with a crime, convicted with a little evidence the defendent has never seen before, just for show, (because after all the judges do what their told) and the person is exicuted and sent to the city incinerator. You may think it’s a preposterous scenario, but it’s happened in the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, and even further back. You can keep your distopian ideals, I’ll never give in to authoritarianism like this.

[Janus]

bossk, you really make things too easy for me. im going to go out of order and start with the juries. “jury of your peers” is a term thrown around a lot, and that is the theoretical application of juries. however, this rarely happens. not only that, you are misinterpreting the intention. you are looking at peers as “people of similar circumstance”. this is not the legal intention of it, instead it is to provide a jury of everyday people. basically people not involved with the law. i dont know if it is a rule, but i dont believe judges or attorneys can serve on juries. that is all that is meant by peers. by your definition bossk, then for example a drug dealer on trial would have a jury of drug dealers, those would be his “peers”. instead, hell probably end up with a jury of soccer moms, school teachers, paper pushers, and clerks at the 7-11. most of them are probably very annoyed that they have to be there, as they see it as a waste of a day. i would bet you that most of them would take one look at the accused, see what he/she is on trial for, and immediately assume guilt. sounds real fair. also, like i said, they are giving up their day to be there, and probably arent happy about it. ever see the movie 12 Angry Men? thats how many juries are, the part where almost all of them dont want to be there, and are ready to assume guilt. judges are paid to be there, it is their job, and many therefor, would at least not try to pass a quick verdict just to get out of there. also, judges have experience. many have probably seen people they would have called guilty or innocent proved the other way. i would say they would be inclined to be impartial, as they have seen that appearances are not always what they seem.

bossk, do you even know how the warrant system works? they dont just go out and get a warrant, they have to apply for one from a judge, giving meticulous evidence supporting the validity of a search. often, by the time this occurs, the suspect has had plenty of time to escape or get rid of the evidence. im not talking about “some dumb schmuck whos growing pot in his closet” im talking about, there are much more heinous crimes out there (though i am for prosecuting pot smokers, different issue however)

Your right bossk, I havent spent time behind bars awaiting a trial, and i probably wouldnt like it. in fact, im almost sure i would be pissed off. but thats irrelevant. just because the advocate of a policy would turn against it if brought against him does not mean the policy is wrong or flawed, it means the person is. similarly, because i would be pissed at being falsely arrested doesnt mean the policy is bad, just that im not selfless enough to think of the social good the policy is brining during my own experience. thats my flaw, not the ideas. and dont be ridiculous, it would be extremely naiive or idealistic to think we could catch every wrong doer with the system, but more guilty would be caught then are now.

now ive had a good humor about these things, but i will not sit here taking your unfounded allegations. your saying that i want to “go around killing people for just any crime” that is ridiculous and false. i dont support the death penalty for any crime, the punishment should fit the crime. and yes, human life is a precious thing. therefor, if you take a life, you no longer deserve your own. reread my post and get your facts straight bossk, dont make accusations that are unfounded.

and dont give me some bull about “nazi germany” and the like, you sound like so many anti-goverment stereotypes, immediately dismissing any augmentation of the governments power as a move towards authoritarianism.

[cystic crypt]

Ahhh Bossk.
I’m so proud of you today. I have to hand it to you - you done some good arguing.
I generally consider myself a bit of a blue liberal, but i have to admit, i’m with you. I’d much rather that some criminal spent an extra week out of jail then me spending an extra week IN jail.
Also i agree with the whole “jury of your peers” bit. It brings things to life. In Manitoba, if a doctor is accused of malpractice, the question is “would other similar physicians agree with the accused’s actions”? The 12 men and women on the street have their hand on the pulse of society much better than a judge. Also i do not think that they are all like “12 angry men”. I’ve a few friends who’ve served on juries - they seem to take their duties quite seriously. As for judges - i wonder if one exists who hasn’t had several of their rulings overturned? How many of them would have the same perspective of 12 other people?
Also i agree with the whole “illegal search and seizure” thing. Certainly some people to manage to get off because the cops did not follow proceedure and were over-zealous in obtaining evidence. For me this is not as worrysome as if an innocent person was convicted because of a mistake made by a police officer.
As for the death penalty - that’s been debated on other threads here. I agree with you here as well:

1. there is no proof that this actually decreases crime (the opposite happens, in fact)
2. its also been shown that juries are less likely to convict if they know that someone will get the death penalty (the problem with juries i guess - stupid citizens having hearts all of a sudden)
3. too many death row sitters have been demonstrated to be innocent and exhonerated (and too many post-mortem). Even in my small city there have been a couple accused and convicted of what would be considered capital crimes in the States wrongfully
   Having said all of this, i guess i could be taken to task for believing that child molesters should be kept in the general prison population . . . :wink:
   Also i agree that augmenting the government’s power does make it more authoritarian. A close check needs to be maintained on the police and state officials. These checks that our friend despises i believe are a few important steps between 1920-1990’s Russia and western civilization.
   Don’t get me wrong - i’m no anarchist.

[Guest]

I feel that the point of the movie “12 Angry Men” has been missed. If those men had been sole judges 11 of them would have convicted the innocent defendent. OK so they were not professional judges, but they all had their individual biases. The jury system is far from perfect, hopefully there will be at least one juror #8 in any jury. Otherwise you are hoping you don’t get a judge who has a bias, or is in a bad mood.

[morten200]

Tempers flare ….

Sure, it may take longer to obtain a search warrant and the criminal will get away with the evidence before the police show up. But if the police really think someone is doing something illegal, how difficult will it be for them to get a small bit of evidence to present to a judge who will then get them the warrant? I believe that no matter whose house the police search, they will find SOMEthing illegal (except mine of course), a taped baseball game, a copy of Lord of the Rings on a burnt CD, cuban cigars, illegal mp3 files, office supplies or that altar for human sacrifice. So if you removed the need for a warrant, people would be fearing a knock on their doors 24 hours a day, because (let´s face it) people are not going to stop being criminal - that´s just communism!

A jury of REAL peers (murderers judging a murderer, drugdealers judging a drugdealer etc.) will never convict anyone, so you´re left with the soccer moms and such. These people may be more easily swayed by retoric and fancy testimonies, so that in the end, they give the verdict to the guy with the flashier presentation. And does anyone really believe that it´s possible to ignore some piece of evidence even after the judge says: “The jury will disregard that comment (or whatever)”? A group of judges would probably be less problematic than a jury of “peers”.

The death penalty will do nothing. The y have the death penalty in many muslim countries for much smaller crimes than murder. They chop peoples hands off for stealing. Have people stopped stealing or murdering? No. Your sense of justice may be greater if a guy gets the chair, though …

[Guest]

Some points to add…
Well, i am with bossk and CC on all points except the jury system. For dubya: The biased judge is something you cannot avoid, that’s why the higher courts over here have more than one judge (so a jury of judges and not of peers). For the bad mood, that’s why trials take longer than an hour, but several days.

For Janus: Principiis obsta !
If you say “well my system is flawless, it is the humans that make it bad”, then you are naive, and you must be a communist and proponent of freedom to bear any arms, etc. Effectively, you must be an anarchist!
No rules is absolute freedom, it’s just the people that will misuse this freedom and make the system fail!

[DeviantScripter]

Having a jury composed entirely of your peers to convict the defendent is not always possible, ie: military tribunals.

[Janus]

cc,you made some valid points about the death penalty. but your points are specifically tailored to the current criminal justice system, which i think should be changed.

[cystic crypt]

@Janus:

cc,you made some valid points about the death penalty. but your points are specifically tailored to the current criminal justice system, which i think should be changed.

possibly (i am also pro-life for other philosophical reaosons - much stronger in my mind, but difficult for me to effectively communicate).
The problem is that your changes to illegal search and seizure etc. would make it easier to get a possibly false conviction. Note that people wrongfully convicted of murder are oftentimes done so because of an overly keen police force. Removing citizen’s rights as you propose would open up possibilities for increased police powers which may well (and easily) be abused. Note: i am not against the police and i am proud of the men in blue in Winnipeg (working in the hospital clues you in to what they have to endure). At the same time, this whole over-policing business is a little bizaare and unnecessary (like arresting people for smoking marijuana HA!)

[Janus]

well cc, i wouldnt bring up the marijuana, because im for arresting people for smoking marijuana, not because i think its such a serious crime, but because i am so against marijuana. but i see your point. id like to add however, that while obviously there would be more room for abuse of power by the police, i think that on a whole, the police are not corrupt, or overzealous, but dedicated and diligent. naturally some may abuse the power, but clearly with the plethora of cases against police for many various things, there is no lack of that now.

[cystic crypt]

@Janus:

well cc, i wouldnt bring up the marijuana, because im for arresting people for smoking marijuana, not because i think its such a serious crime, but because i am so against marijuana. but i see your point. id like to add however, that while obviously there would be more room for abuse of power by the police, i think that on a whole, the police are not corrupt, or overzealous, but dedicated and diligent. naturally some may abuse the power, but clearly with the plethora of cases against police for many various things, there is no lack of that now.

you see, i’m not saying that they are not dedicated and diligent. The problem may be that some of them are TOO dedicated and diligent. They have this feeling/instinct about their suspect, and “BINGO” is his name-o. Next thing you know people are sneaking into people’s houses blah blah blah.
Also there is a marijuana thread - if you care to revive it.

[Guest]

Something that Janus really should think of is the follwong by Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

The above of course is meant for political tolerance, but to make the above possible, you also need quite a police state, where you have the possibility to “create” the verdict you want by any means. And that second is something you would allow. Policemen are human. They are jealous, strife for strange goals, etc, like all of us. They are not better nor worse than the other humans. Still, you’d like give them the power to legally put whoever they want into jail for more or less whatever time they want. Even if there are only a few exploiting that…. then have a look: Not everyone of the people is a criminal, that’s also only a few. I don’t think that the average policeman here or in the US is so much better
than the average policeman in say Chile during Pinochet, etc.
I must say: You do not appear like you really have thought of all the consequences. And thinking of consequences should always include not to think of the good things that may happen, but the bad things that could happen.

I prefer one criminal running around free to one innocent in jail!

[cystic crypt]

i’d prefer 10 criminals running around to 1 innocent in jail!
(especially if i’m the innocent!)
(especially if the 10 are marijuana users!)

[Guest]

but what if those ten are murders?

and what if those murderers do commit their crimes again?

[Janus]

well falk, once again, you make some valid points. but think about this, mind you, this is something i got somewhere, i do not know from where, and im not sure of the original wording, but it went something like this
“for a society to succeed, the needs of the one must be subordinate to the needs of the many” or something like that. basically, one innocent person sitting in jail is, in my mind at least, a small price to pay for keeping criminals off the streets. and Falk, i have thought of most (probably not all) consequences, good and bad, that would come of this, and i think the good far outweigh the bad