Right to a fair trial

DougShrapnel · #1 11-03-2005, 11:05 PM

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 · #2 11-03-2005, 11:13 PM

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

DougShrapnel · #3 11-03-2005, 11:15 PM

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 · #4 11-03-2005, 11:32 PM

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

DougShrapnel · #5 11-04-2005, 03:12 AM

[ 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.

purnell · #6 11-04-2005, 10:04 AM

[ 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!"

RJT · #7 11-04-2005, 02:05 AM

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.

DougShrapnel · #8 11-04-2005, 03:14 AM

[ 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?

RJT · #9 11-04-2005, 04:40 AM

[ 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.

DougShrapnel · #10 11-05-2005, 01:06 PM

[ 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