Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

This actually comes from another thread but it's an idea Jodie should love.

All this expense of trials and courtrooms, free lawyers for perps, maybe there's a way around it.

Why don't we have a system where, if a police officer or prosecutor declares under oath that they "know a person to be guilty of fill in blank" that person goes to jail.

Period! :)
 
I do feel that if you are a terrorist working against this country then you should be stripped of your legal rights. There was a confession and overwhelming positive evidence, I say dispense with a trial in these types of cases.
Click to expand...
There are two things that need to be said about this (aside from the obvious conflicts with established law and legal culture):
First, this isn't a solution to the systemic problems you complain about. "The system doesn't work, let's destroy it in favor of something which is at best no fairer." I'm baffled by the logic of your position. Because your proposal is not a solution, the problems you point to are irrelevant. Their existence doesn't justify your proposal.
Second, think about how your proposal might actually work in practice. How do you decide whether there is a confession and "overwhelming positive evidence" and whether the defendant is a "terrorist"? Presumably you have some decision-maker, who looks at the evidence, the alleged confession and hears arguments about that evidence. For the accused, this looks a lot like a trial. How is it going to be different?

Jodie said:
I 'm sure I would make a horrible juror, not because of impartiality or being close minded, but because I would probably have a better understanding of the forensic evidence than most people. No attorney really wants that kind of person as a juror.

When asked I simply said the physical evidence would speak for itself and that has nothing to do with being impartial.
Click to expand...
There are any number of sorts of people lawyers want to avoid on a jury. Being regarded as an unsuitable juror is not a badge of which you ought to be proud - yet often it is. That is a systemic problem that has nothing to do with the lack of "infrastructure" for the legal system.
That said, as a foreigner I find the American system of jury selection a little odd. In England there are no peremptory challenges; jury you draw is more or less the jury you get unless they happen to know someone involved in the case.
 
Your first point is valid AA, but if the system doesn't work for those of lower
socioeconomic status why should it work for someone as undeserving as the marathon bomber? There is justice on paper and then there is realistic justice. To me, this guy deserves realistic justice and it is a waste of time to go through the motions of a trial in this case.

The fact that the system bars certain people for certain traits or professions is jury rigging and defeats the purpose of a fair trial. I would think you would want people intelligent enough to understand the evidence and I think that is rarely the case if the science behind the evidence happens to be complicated. Attorney's want people that can be swayed to their way of thinking no matter what anyone here might think or say otherwise.
 
Jodie said:
Your first point is valid AA, but if the system doesn't work for those of lower
socioeconomic status why should it work for someone as undeserving as the marathon bomber? There is justice on paper and then there is realistic justice. To me, this guy deserves realistic justice and it is a waste of time to go through the motions of a trial in this case.
Click to expand...
How telling that you drag in socioecomomic status when that is exactly why the legal system is as it is.
Jodie said:
The fact that the system bars certain people for certain traits or professions is jury rigging and defeats the purpose of a fair trial. I would think you would want people intelligent enough to understand the evidence and I think that is rarely the case if the science behind the evidence happens to be complicated. Attorney's want people that can be swayed to their way of thinking no matter what anyone here might think or say otherwise.
Click to expand...
And against that you want a system of judiciary which makes decisions based on your say so? Right. Welcome to north korea.
 
I disagree with Jodie. Yet, Barack Obama does something pretty similar outside the U.S. boundaries by allowing drone strikes if we know there's a terrorist around. Granted those people are not actually in the U.S. and probably aren't citizens, but his administration uses similar justification.

We know someone is an enemy combatant or organizer, we execute them.

But, to me the solution is not to make that OK within the U.S.! There are mechanisms here, safeguards, that I value. I'm just pointing out that Jodie's rationale could also be applied to drone strikes.
 
Jodie said:
Your first point is valid AA, but if the system doesn't work for those of lower
socioeconomic status why should it work for someone as undeserving as the marathon bomber?
Click to expand...
So... the system is unfair to some people... there is a risk that the system will be fair to someone you don't like... therefore make the system unfair to him too? What kind of logic is that?
If you really care about whether the system is fair or not, then making the system more unfair should be a non-starter for you.
There is justice on paper and then there is realistic justice. To me, this guy deserves realistic justice and it is a waste of time to go through the motions of a trial in this case.
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained how your system would work. Who decides if the factors you think should trigger summary conviction are present, and how is the decision making process different from a trial?
The fact that the system bars certain people for certain traits or professions is jury rigging and defeats the purpose of a fair trial. I would think you would want people intelligent enough to understand the evidence and I think that is rarely the case if the science behind the evidence happens to be complicated. Attorney's want people that can be swayed to their way of thinking no matter what anyone here might think or say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Jurors are a perennial problem of the jury trial system. People have been complaining about the lack of intelligent jurors since at least the 17th century. While there are good reasons why some people are excluded from jury service - having serving police officers on a jury in a criminal trial doesn't exactly provide an impartial hearing - I personally don't think that peremptory challenges do anything to make trials fairer.
 
Jodie said:
...The fact that the system bars certain people for certain traits or professions is jury rigging and defeats the purpose of a fair trial. I would think you would want people intelligent enough to understand the evidence and I think that is rarely the case if the science behind the evidence happens to be complicated. Attorney's want people that can be swayed to their way of thinking no matter what anyone here might think or say otherwise.
Click to expand...

For someone who's never been on a jury you sure claim to know an awful lot about how they work.

I've been on two juries and both had evidence that was scientific in nature and somewhat complicated. I think everyone understood since the attorneys did a good job of making it understandable.

Among other things, I think what Jodie fails to understand is, trial lawyers are smart people. They may be a lot of things but they're not stupid.

Jodie your comments here, from the beginning, show me two things. One you have a basic arrogance and two, you're not able to see both sides of an issue. I'd be willing to bet the attorney who asked you be dismissed picked up on that. Your mindset is the definition of partial.
 
Minoosh said:
I disagree with Jodie. Yet, Barack Obama does something pretty similar outside the U.S. boundaries by allowing drone strikes if we know there's a terrorist around. Granted those people are not actually in the U.S. and probably aren't citizens, but his administration uses similar justification.

We know someone is an enemy combatant or organizer, we execute them.

But, to me the solution is not to make that OK within the U.S.! There are mechanisms here, safeguards, that I value. I'm just pointing out that Jodie's rationale could also be applied to drone strikes.
Click to expand...

I disagree. War =/= US Judicial system in any way, shape, or form.
 
newyorkguy said:
For someone who's never been on a jury you sure claim to know an awful lot about how they work.

I've been on two juries and both had evidence that was scientific in nature and somewhat complicated. I think everyone understood since the attorneys did a good job of making it understandable.

Among other things, I think what Jodie fails to understand is, trial lawyers are smart people. They may be a lot of things but they're not stupid.

Jodie your comments here, from the beginning, show me two things. One you have a basic arrogance and two, you're not able to see both sides of an issue. I'd be willing to bet the attorney who asked you be dismissed picked up on that. Your mindset is the definition of partial.
Click to expand...

I'm called on a fairly regular basis (about 2-3 times a year) as an expert witness, and have served on a few juries, including one federal jury. (I was an alternate of the fed one) So, the inside of a courtroom is quite familiar to me. Jodie's opinions on how things work in court, are VERY far from the truth of what ACTUALLY happens.

And you're 100% correct, trial lawyers are DAMN smart. Hell, they've tripped me up on more than a few occasions, and asked questions I didn't know answers to on a few occasions. They're not stupid. Far from it.
 
triforcharity said:
I disagree. War =/= US Judicial system in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

Would it be accurate to say drone strikes are remote-controlled executions/assassinations against non-state players? They don't seem like straight-up traditional warfare.
 
No, IMO. They're not traditional, but neither are many of the things we use for war. War and combat is constantly evolving. Heck, much of the technology we've used in the past 10 years, didn't exist in the 90's, or was in limited use.
 
triforcharity said:
No, IMO. They're not traditional, but neither are many of the things we use for war. War and combat is constantly evolving. Heck, much of the technology we've used in the past 10 years, didn't exist in the 90's, or was in limited use.
Click to expand...

If Tsarnaev or his brother would be fair game outside U.S. borders due to the acceptance of drone strikes, then Jodie's position doesn't seem like such a leap. You say war is constantly evolving - so could it evolve into something we do within our borders?

You wrote:
War =/= US Judicial system in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...

I wasn't attempting to equate them. Just tease out the difference between Jodie's position and the U.S. practice of targeted assassinations.
 
I understand what you're saying, but it's inaccurate. Being an enemy of war, and being charged with a crime in the US, are not equal in the slightest, though I understand you weren't equating them. WRT: War and the evolution of such, I was speaking in general. Could we end up in another war within our borders? Sure. Plausible? Not IMO. What we do on a battlefield has nothing to do with how our justice system works, and is designed to work within the US, are completely different.
 
Minoosh said:
I disagree with Jodie. Yet, Barack Obama does something pretty similar outside the U.S. boundaries by allowing drone strikes if we know there's a terrorist around. Granted those people are not actually in the U.S. and probably aren't citizens, but his administration uses similar justification.

We know someone is an enemy combatant or organizer, we execute them.

But, to me the solution is not to make that OK within the U.S.! There are mechanisms here, safeguards, that I value. I'm just pointing out that Jodie's rationale could also be applied to drone strikes.
Click to expand...

The difference is between punishment and warfighting.

Drone strikes are only applied against people we're at war with who pose an imminent threat to the US, and only against people whom the US can't reasonably capture. They're a weapon of war. They're used to kill America's enemies before America's enemies kill Americans.

Whatever is done to Tsarnaev, however, will not be an act of war, and will not be based (at least not primarily) on preventing future misdeeds. It will be to punish him for what he has already done.
 
newyorkguy said:
For someone who's never been on a jury you sure claim to know an awful lot about how they work.

I've been on two juries and both had evidence that was scientific in nature and somewhat complicated. I think everyone understood since the attorneys did a good job of making it understandable.

Among other things, I think what Jodie fails to understand is, trial lawyers are smart people. They may be a lot of things but they're not stupid.

Jodie your comments here, from the beginning, show me two things. One you have a basic arrogance and two, you're not able to see both sides of an issue. I'd be willing to bet the attorney who asked you be dismissed picked up on that. Your mindset is the definition of partial.
Click to expand...

No, my mindset is based on reality. Proverbially speaking, If everyone wants to continue to admire the emperor's new clothes, go right ahead, I say he is naked.

The more money you have to procure services the better the attorney's abilities, you get what you pay for in the United States. It isn't much different than the system of bribery used in other countries, I'm thinking South America and the Soviet Union, but on the surface it looks more "just".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom