• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

So we want to shoot someone in a simple fight

R50FJ60

R50FJ60

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
22
Location
Manassas, VA & Shepherdstown, WVA
Thanks guys, i'm pretty sure I understand now.
It is a shame though, that a person who is guilty beyond a doubt goes free due to lack of evidence or some silly loophole. That is what I was trying to get out of my rant, sort of.
Nobody is perfect, but its just so plain obvious (sometimes) that some people really feel no remorse or regret of doing anything heinous. These are the ones that makes me wish it was possible to address things on a case by case basis. . .
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
R50FJ60 said:
SNIP It is a shame though, that a person who is guilty beyond a doubt goes free due to lack of evidence or some silly loophole. That is what I was trying to get out of my rant, sort of.
Click to expand...

A shame? I don't really consider it such, because I can compare it to government's possible abuses did it have more latitude. Your average street criminal can only affect the people he meets. A nasty government affects everyone in its jurisdiction. So, one angle is that this is the price we pay--some criminals go free--to keep an even bigger bunch of criminals off our back.

If you take a close look, many of those silly loopholes are actually your rights or procedures that protect your rights. If a judge lets a bad guy off because of a silly loophole, for example, illegally obtained evidence during traffic stop, the judge is doing his job. Its the cop who screwed it up. It is the judge's job to let the accused off in a manner of speaking--throw out the charges, suppress certain evidence, etc.
 
R50FJ60

R50FJ60

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
22
Location
Manassas, VA & Shepherdstown, WVA
Woah. So, we pretty much can't win? Gov't overstepping its boundaries or potential for criminals to accost you? I do agree though, any evidence acquired via illegal means should be tossed out (there I go contradicting myself).
 
C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
R50FJ60 said:
Woah. So, we pretty much can't win?
Click to expand...

Sure you can win. Criminals do get caught and jailed. The error is to assume you can't win if you can't catch all criminals.

And, you definitely win if government stays off your back by playing by the rules.

Read up on the Spanish Inquisition for an example of what happens when the accuser is the prosecutor is the judge. Mere rumor or malicious gossip could be enough to get you arrested, questioned (no 5th Amendment), tortured, and messily executed--like burned at the stake.

Of course, we're not that bad in the US today, but recall the cop detective in the second half of Prof. Duane's video about not talking to cops. The detective served in the military, had a view of other justice systems. He said that in many countries a post-arrest interrogation starts physically.

You should check out cases of prosecutorial abuse in this country. Talk about a reminder of the Inquisition! Some of the current and recent cases are chilling.

Also, check out the Innocence Project, a non-profit that fights to free wrongly convicted people. I think they are up to about 250 exonerations now. The last guy I heard of was in prison for 18 years. The nasty part is the prosecutors who refuse and fight like the devil to prevent testing of DNA. You'd think they wouldn't want an innocent person jailed, that they would welcome testing the DNA to find out if an innocent person was convicted, but oh no. Some of them fight tooth-and-nail to prevent testing.
 
Neplusultra

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
Citizen said:
Dating in origins from the 1300-1400's, it is a maxim that it is better that 20 guilty people go free than one innocent person is convicted.

We spent centuries overcoming innuendo and rumor in English law. England was very, very lucky that King Henry II laid the ground work for jury trials and the accusatory system just years--less than a century--before the rest of Europe fell under the sway of the Inquisition where innuendo and rumor and malicious gossip could lead to torture and death. England missed out on the Inquisition precisely because it already had the beginnings of an accusatory system by the time the Inquisition started to rise.

Further, an actual legal premise is innocent until proven guilty.

Facts that prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt are what is wanted. Not facts about a criminal record that indicate he might be guilty. Or, might be more likely to be guilty. What if a person had reformed after his last brush with the law? What if the person is at heart of questionable integrity and occasional petty crime, but did not actually commit this crime? Dare we give government the power to go after bad people using innuendo and implication, for surely once government can use inuendo and implication on anybody, it will turn those weapons on others who might be innocent. Just ask Stephen Hatfill, Richard Jewell, and the Duke Lacrosse team.

Prior history has its place. But, not here.

Prior history of good deeds or community contribution would be useful. And, prior history of the attackers during a self-defense trial. But, when guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, innuendo and implication have no place.
Click to expand...

Well said Citizen, George Mason couldn't have put it better.
 
The Wolfhound

The Wolfhound

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
728
Location
Henrico, Virginia, USA
For prosecutors, it is about numbers

Numbers of cleared cases. Actual guilt of the accused is a bonus. It is all about getting the cases off the agenda. Have we not all heard of cases settled for a plea bargain to make the process "just go away"? I am sure when a really "bad" guy gets put away they do feel some enthusiasm but the system really dulls down to a grind, there is always the next case awaiting their attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top