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.

RJT · #5 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.

J. Stew · #6 11-04-2005, 02:31 AM

[ 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 · #7 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.

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?

DougShrapnel · #9 11-04-2005, 03:28 AM

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 · #10 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.