Should crimininal defense have limits? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-14-2006, 09:37 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewystick69
This is why I hate liberals. They don't think rationally. They think with emotion.
Ironic statement of the year, so far.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 09:59 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 33
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Ironic statement of the year, so far.

Melon
Well the year is short.

But it is not irony if there is truthfulness behind my remarks my bearded friend. By the way, does your hat and beard make you more intelligent? I can read you like a book. I'd bet that you are a gay non-catholic.

michael moore or barbara streisand has spoken recently. Keep following them. You keep thinking like hillary clinton, good luck in 2008!
__________________

__________________
Chewystick69 is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:06 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:25 AM
oh my God, melon really IS Orson Welles!
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:09 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chewystick69
But it is not irony if there is truthfulness behind my remarks my bearded friend. By the way, does your hat and beard make you more intelligent? I can read you like a book. I'd bet that you are a gay non-catholic.
My hat and beard tell me that you should look up the definition of "irony" sometime. If you're going to burst into a thread and call all liberals irrational and emotional, don't precede it with a bunch of irrational and emotional generalizations yourself.

Quote:
michael moore or barbara streisand has spoken recently. Keep following them. You keep thinking like hillary clinton, good luck in 2008!
Ah...and there you go. Making too many incorrect assumptions. So forgive me if I question the wisdom of those in our criminal justice system. You're not infallible, and DNA testing has released some of the fruits of your labors in recent years.

But that's besides the point. This thread was about limiting criminal defense, not presuming that their defense is correct. A strong prosecution will see through a flimsy defense; but flimsy prosecution solely on circumstantial evidence is always vulnerable. After all, prosecutors have been complaining about the "CSI effect," countering that 3/4 of all cases are based on circumstantial evidence, their reasoning that being the lack of concrete evidence should not be an automatic acquittal in their view. But again, circumstantial cases are always vulnerable.

Just as a side note, I actually studied criminal justice for a year myself. I enjoyed the slides of murder victims, particularly when it came to insects and corpses.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:21 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Just as a side note, I actually studied criminal justice for a year myself. I enjoyed the slides of murder victims, particularly when it came to insects and corpses.

Melon
not surprising coming from the zombie of Orson Welles
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:24 PM   #21
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
not surprising coming from the zombie of Orson Welles
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:26 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Brilliant
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:27 PM   #23
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 33
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


So forgive me if I question the wisdom of those in our criminal justice system. You're not infallible, and DNA testing has released some of the fruits of your labors in recent years.

DNA testing has revealed some wrongful convictions. However, many convictions have been overturned based solely on that the defendant's DNA was not found on the scene. Which is not an accurate assumption as to being guilty or innocent.

The ex-governor of Illionis pardoned all death-row inmates a few years ago because many of them were later found innocent. And rightfully so. But, DNA is not the tell-all of cases. Most evidence technicians never processed crime scenes 10-15 years ago looking for DNA. So it's unfair to judge a case nowadays without that evidence.

By the way, the jury is deliberating this week regarding our ex-crooked gov who pardoned all those killers. I'll celebrate once that GUILTY is read. May he rot in prison despite his multi-million defense.

Melon
__________________
Chewystick69 is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:28 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 33
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Hmmm.
That last post was posted by me. Not Melon.
__________________
Chewystick69 is offline  
Old 03-14-2006, 10:33 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:25 AM
My only point coming into this thread was to say that I don't believe that defense cases should be further limited. Our system is flawed, yes, but it's better than the system before it back in the colonial days. I'll agree that a lot of defense cases can be really flimsy, particularly when we start getting into insanity defenses/excuses. I must admit that I don't always buy the idea of "temporary insanity," but I'm also not a judge or legal professional.

So, really, I'm arguing procedure here over substance. Maybe I should have been a lawyer myself.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-15-2006, 12:32 AM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:25 AM
I agree with melon. Based on my experiences, which I admit are somewhat limited compared to others (I've taken courses in law and criminal investigation, my uncle runs the county jail, I have a good family friend who is a defense attorney, have had a peer whose father was tried and convicted for killing his mother, and I've gone through the jury selection process and been selected for a jury myself), I believe the system we currently have in the US is what works. Of course it's not perfect, but I can't think of any way to make changes that would come back to bite millions of people in the ass later on. A lot of defense cases are pretty laughable, but it's up to the jury and judge to see past that. We've got plenty of other aspects to trials than just the prosecution vs. the defense. Grand juries, pre-trial motions, objections, etc....there are plenty of chances for checks and balances on either side. Also, I think there are already enough appropriate limitations on criminal defense (can't win mental insanity unless you can prove the defendend doesn't understand right from wrong, can't win self defense unless you can prove the defendent acted as a result of his/her life being in imminent danger, etc). Often there's much more to a conviction/acquittal than a jury simply deciding whether to convict or acquit. In a lot of cases, the judge will have to instruct the jury based on the charge and the prosecution not only has the burden of removing reasonable doubt, but also proving things like intent, premeditation, etc.

As for the OJ Simpson case, I was still pretty young when it actually happened, but from what I've studied looking back, there were fatal flaws made by the prosecution and if I had to sit on that jury....boy that would be a difficult call to make.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 03-15-2006, 12:57 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
My only point coming into this thread was to say that I don't believe that defense cases should be further limited. Our system is flawed, yes, but it's better than the system before it back in the colonial days. I'll agree that a lot of defense cases can be really flimsy, particularly when we start getting into insanity defenses/excuses. I must admit that I don't always buy the idea of "temporary insanity," but I'm also not a judge or legal professional.

So, really, I'm arguing procedure here over substance. Maybe I should have been a lawyer myself.

Melon
I agree with Melon that the system, with its flaws, is still a very good system. I would be extremely difficult to make a change that would increase the percentage of appropriate convictions without increasing the percentage of inappropriate convictions.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-15-2006, 02:23 AM   #28
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The basic premise of our judicial system is a trial by peers (instead of "the Crown" handing down judgment).

Theoretically, you would pull jurors from all aspects of life. However, you lose people who do not respond to jury notices, or who find an excuse for not serving. It is a job that most people would rather not do.

Let's just say I've heard more than one attorney refer to jury pools (the group of potential jurors) as the people not smart enough to get out of jury service.
Ah, thank you. I think your system is very similar to ours but the jury aspect differs only slightly. I actually dont know for certain as I've never been called up, even though I've been on the electoral roll for 12 years and do not have a criminal record!
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-15-2006, 06:05 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:25 AM
I look at all the tools the prosecution has at its disposal and even so, how often they don't play fair. I look at the police chemist whose "expert" testimony helped lead to wrongful convictions and see not just a mistake in lab evidence, but a lab worker who was overeager to please the DA's office. I look at dubious witnesses to whose advantage it is to testify the way the state would like them to testify. I look at exculpatory evidence that must be presented by law and is not. Expert witness whores. And sometimes police officers lie.

The deck is still stacked against the defendant, no matter what the conventional wisdom is, even when the prosecution plays fair. Presumption of innocence is a legal term. Outside of the courtroom, we are not bound by a presumption of innocence. And I suspect that what we call presumption of innocence for the jury is mostly in all practicality the willingness to suspend our presumption of guilt while the jury sees whether the prosecution proves its case.

Sometimes I think a professional jury is codeword for a prosecutor's jury. For all its flaws, I believe in the jury system as it is, because I think when it is a once or twice in a lifetime event, the jury takes their responsibilities seriously. I think their power weighs heavily on them particularly in serious crime cases. They do not want to make a mistake.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 03-15-2006, 08:12 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint

Sometimes I think a professional jury is codeword for a prosecutor's jury. For all its flaws, I believe in the jury system as it is, because I think when it is a once or twice in a lifetime event, the jury takes their responsibilities seriously. I think their power weighs heavily on them particularly in serious crime cases. They do not want to make a mistake.
I agree. When I had to serve, we first spent 6 hours being selected. They asked some people some pretty serious questions. Luckily the questions they directed at my specifically were thrown out by the judge. Out of a pool of around 50 that day, our jury ended up with only FIVE people because so many were excused for different reasons and the defendant agreed to a five person jury in order to not have to wait through another selection. Then when it was time for a trial, we spent about 3 hours being prepared for the trial. It wasn't even a signficant trial, a charge that was barely felonious.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com