• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US Justice System..........does anyone like it??

Tmy

Philosopher
Tmy
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
6,487
The left hate it cause its unfair, especially to the poor and minorities, the right hate it because its not strong enough.

WE talk big about how great our system is, then we turn around and bash it. We're told that "rouge judges" are making laws and electing presidents. We have legislation like the Patriot act which looks to take away the safety nets in our system. Camp Xray, "enemy combatants,"military tribunals, they arise out of fear of our system. Fear that the system would let the bad people go.

THe Saddam trial, theres no way they would let him be tried in a tradtional US system.

Do you think our system is just?
 
Tmy said:
The left hate it cause its unfair, especially to the poor and minorities, the right hate it because its not strong enough.

WE talk big about how great our system is, then we turn around and bash it. We're told that "rouge judges" are making laws and electing presidents. We have legislation like the Patriot act which looks to take away the safety nets in our system. Camp Xray, "enemy combatants,"military tribunals, they arise out of fear of our system. Fear that the system would let the bad people go.

THe Saddam trial, theres no way they would let him be tried in a tradtional US system.

Do you think our system is just?
Click to expand...

Relatively speaking, yes.
 
Tmy said:
The left hate it cause its unfair, especially to the poor and minorities, the right hate it because its not strong enough.

WE talk big about how great our system is, then we turn around and bash it. We're told that "rouge judges" are making laws and electing presidents. We have legislation like the Patriot act which looks to take away the safety nets in our system. Camp Xray, "enemy combatants,"military tribunals, they arise out of fear of our system. Fear that the system would let the bad people go.

THe Saddam trial, theres no way they would let him be tried in a tradtional US system.

Do you think our system is just?
Click to expand...

I think you are trolling with your usual silly ad hominems.
Who cares whether or not judges wear rouge?
 
Sill ad homs! HOW DARE YOU! ('sides soemone has to carry this board)


Well it bothers me when our adminstration tries every trick in the book to keep people out of the justice system. Like the Xray boys.
Whats the big deal if they get a little due process?
 
Still.. there are some remaining flies... And I don't think you would want to be one of them... ;)
 
Elio said:
Still.. there are some remaining flies... And I don't think you would want to be one of them... ;)
Click to expand...

That's why I don't commit first-degree murder. That and it would be wrong to do it.
 
Grammatron said:


At the rate of the appeal process they're not dropping like flies now either.
Click to expand...

Whats the big deal on the appeals wait. They still end up just as dead.
 
Well, I understand this is not a thread about death penalty.

But it is my view that death penalty is a valid argument to assess any justice system.

Sorry if I'm off-topic...

Elio.
 
Tmy said:
We're told that "rouge judges" are making laws....
Click to expand...
I know that you mean "rogue," but this remark made me smile and do a double-take.
 
Elio said:
Well, I understand this is not a thread about death penalty.

But it is my view that death penalty is a valid argument to assess any justice system.

Sorry if I'm off-topic...

Elio.
Click to expand...

The problem most people seem to have with it is executing innocent someone innocent, which is a valid concern I myself share and the reason appeal process is so long. However with the advances in technology and DNA testing, one can be more and more certain the real criminal gets executed.
 
"Well it bothers me when our adminstration tries every trick in the book to keep people out of the justice system. Like the Xray boys.
Whats the big deal if they get a little due process?"

That is a good question.

So what is wrong with a little due process?
Probably the fact there shouldn't be just a little of it.

Someone whom the government has accused of a crime should have access to all possible due process, as well as the other protections of the justice system. And that premise allows for 10 to 20 years worth of death row appeals, unworkably overcrowded court dockets, etc. But we maintain it because the individual defendant usually needs all the help they can get when facing the weight of the goverment's bureacracy.

So in the case of a war, or a war like scenario, does our justice system have the capacity to allow every single member of the forces captured to have a court appointed attorney, translators, bail hearings, a lengthy trial (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt) free filings of unlimited appeals, a mainland prison cell with phones, law libraries, air conditioning, made for TV movie and book deals and so forth?

Or do we simply follow international conventions and warehouse them until hostilities have been formally ended, with no attempt to maintain any facade of civilian justice?
(Although, a standard option for POWs caught behind the lines in civilian clothes has been summary execution, something that those demanding that the X-ray and Abu-gharaib prisoners be treated as POWs should consider).

In any case, it ruins the nice neat separation between military and civilian justice systems when civilians, including US citizens, are whisked under the POW warehouseing blanket on grounds that are more typically seen in civilian courtrooms.
 
Grammatron ,
The problem most people seem to have with it is executing innocent someone innocent, which is a valid concern I myself share and the reason appeal process is so long. However with the advances in technology and DNA testing, one can be more and more certain the real criminal gets executed.
Click to expand...
So no innocent people being executed ? Good. I agree with that.

Still, I think the only punishment acceptable is privation of liberty

Anything else is not acceptable in my view.

Elio.
 
Grammatron said:


The problem most people seem to have with it is executing innocent someone innocent, which is a valid concern I myself share and the reason appeal process is so long. However with the advances in technology and DNA testing, one can be more and more certain the real criminal gets executed.
Click to expand...

I agree that the DNA cuts down on identity problems, but...

The problem I see with the death penalty is not so much the execution of the innocent, as the methods used to single out who gets executed versus who does not. There is a fine line there that has more to do with the quality of legal representation and the inherent prejudices of the jury pool than justice.

At least in my opinion anyway.
 
Suddenly said:


I agree that the DNA cuts down on identity problems, but...

The problem I see with the death penalty is not so much the execution of the innocent, as the methods used to single out who gets executed versus who does not. There is a fine line there that has more to do with the quality of legal representation and the inherent prejudices of the jury pool than justice.

At least in my opinion anyway.
Click to expand...

Well your opinion carries more weight since you deal more with a system. However, are you for, against or indifferent toward the death penalty?
 
Grammatron said:


Well your opinion carries more weight since you deal more with a system. However, are you for, against or indifferent toward the death penalty?
Click to expand...

I wish I knew....

I think it has a place. However, I think it should be limited to certain types of crimes and situations. The fact that Terry Nichols will live because he "found God" (and lets face it - his being white didn't hurt him) should give anyone pause when considering the fairness of the death penalty.

I do think there should be the death penalty for those who commit murder while already serving a life w/ no parole sentence. Past that, not so much.

Most of what I think otherwise seems to center around odd aspects of the justice system.

I think it is a waste of money considering the difference in a death penalty trial versus one where death is not in play. Add to that the fact that in reality the death penalty just shortens a life/no parole sentence by maybe 20 years on average. Just doesn't pass the cost/benefit analysis in that regard.

Somewhat related is the poor buggers that have to represent these people. I can tell you right off that if my state got the death penalty I wouldn't handle such cases without getting more money. The stress of dealing with life sentences alone is staggering. Throw the chance that I could wind up looking through a glass window watching the state kill someone who I couldn't keep alive seems other-worldly. Double if I thought that person was innocent, or maybe made a mistake along the way. I know several criminal defense lawyers that would quit or crack if that came to pass. So, you wind up raising demand for good criminal lawyers by having the death penalty, but you lower supply as most people just couldn't handle the work. Thus, you spend more money or let morons who can't find other work handle the cases. So you get massive delays and expense or drunk lawyers that sleep through trials.

On the other hand, with the death penalty my state couldn't toss someone in jail forever on the basis of a single trial where the judge ignores the law, and gets away with it because the one appeals court votes not to hear an appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom