Right to a fair trial

[DougShrapnel]

Borrowing losely from David Mammet.

One has a right to a fair and expediant trial. In then stands to reason that one's life is incomplete if he does not stand acused. Why must one stand accused in order to exerices his rights? This should be reworded to say that one has the right to not be falsely accused and one has the right to not be falsely convicted. It appears that no one seems to have much of a problem with false accusation or false conviction.

I purpose a solution to our justice system, if a man is found guilty incorrectly by a trail. Those jurors and prosecuting attorneys should suffer than same penalty inflected on the wrongly convicted.

[purnell]

You don't think people try hard enough to get out of jury duty already?

[DougShrapnel]

To think that the only people deciding the fate of many accused are the same not smart enough to get out of jury duty. But other than that what do you think. Lets forget praticality

[purnell]

Yikes! I think it would result in zero convictions. Pascal's wager.

[RJT]

I think we should go with the honor system. Those guilty should just own up to their crimes and confess. No one wants to takes reponsibilty for their actions anymore.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
In then stands to reason that one's life is incomplete if he does not stand acused.

[/ QUOTE ]


What does this mean?

Muhammed (sp?) had a similar idea 2500 years ago, "An eye for an eye. . . " Consequences for sure, but not death IMO.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Yikes! I think it would result in zero convictions. Pascal's wager.

[/ QUOTE ]Yikes is right. Kinda scares me that you think that no one would be willing to take personal responsiblity for the state of the criminal justice system. But it does help to explain how we got into the situation to begin with.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we should go with the honor system. Those guilty should just own up to their crimes and confess. No one wants to takes reponsibilty for their actions anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]I know you are joking, but I can't tell if you agree that the justice system does not hold anyone accountable and that accountability is a problem?

[DougShrapnel]

It means that if you have a right to a fair and fast trail, then one must a) commit a crime and be caught or b) stand falsely accused. In order to exercise your rights you must either by a criminal or wrongly accused. So if you are not a criminal, you must be standing innocent. And standing a trail while innocent is your right.

Your right is not that you should not be wrongly convicted. Your right is just that your trail is fair, and fast. It's a problem I see with the legal system.

As far as the “eye for an eye” thing, that is the most commonly misused legal finding from religious texts. Eye for an eye means let the punishment fit the crime. Eye for an eye mean let the rich and poor have access to the same judical system. It does not mean if someone takes your eye you take there eye. Merely that the punishment is the same for all classes of society as well as fitting of the crime.


Does that clarify anything?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we should go with the honor system. Those guilty should just own up to their crimes and confess. No one wants to takes reponsibilty for their actions anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]I know you are joking, but I can't tell if you agree that the justice system does not hold anyone accountable and that accountability is a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]


The recourse we have now for a wrongly accused person is to sue the State for $$.

If a juror is bribed to convict then the juror is criminally liable.

If a juror makes a mistake, how can you fault someone for honestly trying to do his best?

As far as a prosecutor if he honestly believes the defendant guilty, I say no retribution should be allowed. Except of course to sue for $$.

If he is guilty of malfeasance or malicious prosecution - I think this is what you are asking. Limit your question here, I think might be the way to approach the subject.

This is probably a bigger problem than most of us are aware. It happens alot I think. Folk trying to make a names for themselves on the backs of defendants.

Now that I think more about it, perhaps I was too hasty to jest. I think the juror thing is what made me brush off the post.

I’ll have to think about that one.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yikes! I think it would result in zero convictions. Pascal's wager.

[/ QUOTE ]Yikes is right. Kinda scares me that you think that no one would be willing to take personal responsiblity for the state of the criminal justice system. But it does help to explain how we got into the situation to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are suggesting that one could be sent to prison for being part of a jury that convicted a person based on false evidence. As a juror, one is supposed to make a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. If that evidence is flawed or false, a juror's decision will be commensurately flawed. Your scenario is anathema to liberty. Thus, "Yikes!"

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yikes! I think it would result in zero convictions. Pascal's wager.

[/ QUOTE ]Yikes is right. Kinda scares me that you think that no one would be willing to take personal responsiblity for the state of the criminal justice system. But it does help to explain how we got into the situation to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are suggesting that one could be sent to prison for being part of a jury that convicted a person based on false evidence. As a juror, one is supposed to make a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. If that evidence is flawed or false, a juror's decision will be commensurately flawed. Your scenario is anathema to liberty. Thus, "Yikes!"

[/ QUOTE ]So let me get this straight; the evidence can be flawed or false, yet you think it's fair to decide things this way, provided it doesn't affect you?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are suggesting that one could be sent to prison for being part of a jury that convicted a person based on false evidence. As a juror, one is supposed to make a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. If that evidence is flawed or false, a juror's decision will be commensurately flawed. Your scenario is anathema to liberty. Thus, "Yikes!"

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight; the evidence can be flawed or false, yet you think it's fair to decide things this way, provided it doesn't affect you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... no. Where did you get that?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are suggesting that one could be sent to prison for being part of a jury that convicted a person based on false evidence. As a juror, one is supposed to make a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. If that evidence is flawed or false, a juror's decision will be commensurately flawed. Your scenario is anathema to liberty. Thus, "Yikes!"

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight; the evidence can be flawed or false, yet you think it's fair to decide things this way, provided it doesn't affect you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... no. Where did you get that?

[/ QUOTE ]Ok so it isn't fair to judge someone on possibly false or flawed evidence? It was just the responsiblity of jurors in the OP that you didn't like.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are suggesting that one could be sent to prison for being part of a jury that convicted a person based on false evidence. As a juror, one is supposed to make a judgement based upon the evidence presented at trial. If that evidence is flawed or false, a juror's decision will be commensurately flawed. Your scenario is anathema to liberty. Thus, "Yikes!"

[/ QUOTE ]

So let me get this straight; the evidence can be flawed or false, yet you think it's fair to decide things this way, provided it doesn't affect you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... no. Where did you get that?

[/ QUOTE ]Ok so it isn't fair to judge someone on possibly false or flawed evidence? It was just the responsiblity of jurors in the OP that you didn't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was depriving jurors (random people who have nothing to do with the alleged crime) of their liberty that I didn't like.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It was depriving jurors (random people who have nothing to do with the alleged crime) of their liberty that I didn't like.

[/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, and the whole point isn't really to inact what i stipulated. It would be ridiculous to do so. But you make a distinction between the jurors and the wrongfuly accused. The wrongfully accused also is a random person not connected with the crime.

You are willing to let people with no accountabilty make the distinction of guilt or inocence, in fact you seem to perfer it?

Lets say that with a change in the law, the O J trial would be allowed to be retried. But instead of OJ on trail the jurors would be tried for incompetence? Is that such a horrible thing to say? It would take alot to prove incompetence on belalf of jurors, and the OJ jurors probably wouldn't get convicted. Would you be for something like that? Or how about professional jurors? This is kind of a side topic to the OP but it's seems like it would be a fun road to go down.

[purnell]

I am hoping that the police and prosecutors in your state are not picking names out of a hat in order to decide who are criminal suspects.

The "professional juror" thing might possibly be good. If they were elected, there would be a political influence, though.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
If a juror makes a mistake, how can you fault someone for honestly trying to do his best?

[/ QUOTE ] It's the grander scheme of things, that we allow and encourage an unjust legal system with little personal accountability. As David said in his Death Penalty piece, we bury our heads in the sand to the unjustness of certain actions of the legal system.

[ QUOTE ]
Limit your question here, I think might be the way to approach the subject.


[/ QUOTE ] Yes, this is a symptom. I could limit my subject here but I'm a root cause kind of guy. And the root of the problem is the rights we are granted or demand. We say that someone is presumed innocent, but we do not mean it. It shows when we say that someone be it a criminal or other has the right to a fair and fast trial. Only criminals have a right to a fast and fair trail. I'm not big on arguing the rights of criminals, so I won't go much further than that. Plus if I limited my argument, I don’t think it would be as fun. Bringing the whole practicality thing into a philosophical discussion lessens your options.




There are others, and I'm in the minority here, who think the system is perfectly fine indicting not guilty persons. It’s the price we must pay to have justice. I’m not buying. Innocent until proven guilty and Right to a fair and fast trail are conflicting statements