Tennessee Takes Errant Self-Defense Shots Seriously, per 39-11-604

[E4 No More]

Those of means can afford to hire the best legal representation but I don't and never have seen anything wrong with that any more than I see anything wrong with those of means being able to buy the nicest houses, best cars, yachts, etc. etc., all of which I see as incentive to want to part of those people of means.  ;)

Justice is supposed to be blind. Have you ever known someone to be falsely accused? I have, then there's those that I didn't know like those involved in the "Duke Rape Case" a few years ago, or the numerous "criminals" that have been cleared by DNA testing after spending decades in jail. If you want a justice system then the state should prosecute misconduct with felonious penalties and pay the legal fees of those found not guilty. Judges can become lawyers but lawyers cannot become judges. Bring back a true circuit judge who isn't beholding to a Mayor or city council.

 

When you've spent time as a LEO watching things like your judge, (who was also a private practice lawyer), representing his own client in his own court you become a bit cynical of the legal system.

[RobertNashville]

Justice is supposed to be blind. Have you ever known someone to be falsely accused? I have, then there's those that I didn't know like those involved in the "Duke Rape Case" a few years ago, or the numerous "criminals" that have been cleared by DNA testing after spending decades in jail. If you want a justice system then the state should prosecute misconduct with felonious penalties and pay the legal fees of those found not guilty. Judges can become lawyers but lawyers cannot become judges. Bring back a true circuit judge who isn't beholding to a Mayor or city council.

When you've spent time as a LEO watching things like your judge, (who was also a private practice lawyer), representing his own client in his own court you become a bit cynical of the legal system.

I see it as two different issues. I can certainly agree that there are corrupt people within the justice system (including law enforcement) that taints the process and sends innocent people to jail. I think we can all agree that it shouldn’t be that way but where “man” is involved; no system will ever be perfect.

However, a person having the financial resources to be able to afford the best in legal representation is not something that’s wrong with the system or “wrong” at all in my opinion. Having significant financial resources at one’s disposal brings opportunities and rewards that those without those resources will don't enjoy and I’m glad of it because it is those rewards that are the incentive to continually belter one’s lot in life through education and hard work.

[GlockSpock]

When you've spent time as a LEO watching things like your judge, (who was also a private practice lawyer), representing his own client in his own court you become a bit cynical of the legal system.

 

:stunned:

[E4 No More]

I see it as two different issues. I can certainly agree that there are corrupt people within the justice system (including law enforcement) that taints the process and sends innocent people to jail. I think we can all agree that it shouldn’t be that way but where “man” is involved; no system will ever be perfect.

However, a person having the financial resources to be able to afford the best in legal representation is not something that’s wrong with the system or “wrong” at all in my opinion. Having significant financial resources at one’s disposal brings opportunities and rewards that those without those resources will don't enjoy and I’m glad of it because it is those rewards that are the incentive to continually belter one’s lot in life through education and hard work.

I don't blame ANYONE for paying what they can for a defense. My issue is not with them but with the legal system. It's a shame that people who are wrongly accused, (whether intentionally or not), have to be financially ruined to prove their innocence. If they fed/state/county/city had to compensate someone who's found not guilty there would be a heck of a lot of prosecutors exercising better judgement.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I don't blame ANYONE for paying what they can for a defense. My issue is not with them but with the legal system. It's a shame that people who are wrongly accused, (whether intentionally or not), have to be financially ruined to prove their innocence. If they fed/state/county/city had to compensate someone who's found not guilty there would be a heck of a lot of prosecutors exercising better judgement.

Or if those prosecutors could be held personally responsible for egregious failures that would be great too. 

 

I have always said, even when I worked in LE, that if an officer does wrong and gets sued he should have to bear some, if not all, of the financial burden if he is found guilty.

 

As it stands right now an officer can do some absolutely heinous things and the city/county are the ones who pay, not the officer. And that isn't isolated cases but every single case I have ever seen or heard about. Not once has an officer had to pay financially for their defense or, if they are found guilty, damages. This is how it goes the vast majority of times I have witnessed it: The officer screws up, someone sues the officer, city/county, city/county picks of the cost of defense, city/county settles out of court, officer either goes back to work or resigns to go work somewhere else. In the end the officer doesn't owe a single dime yet the taxpayers have to pay more in taxes because of it, either through increased insurance premiums or to pay the actual settlement.

[midtennchip]

I don't blame ANYONE for paying what they can for a defense. My issue is not with them but with the legal system. It's a shame that people who are wrongly accused, (whether intentionally or not), have to be financially ruined to prove their innocence. If they fed/state/county/city had to compensate someone who's found not guilty there would be a heck of a lot of prosecutors exercising better judgement.

 

That is true.  Being a criminal defendant, particularly one who is wrongly accused, is generally an expensive proposition.  However, putting those kinds of constraints on the prosecution would also cause a LARGE number of truly guilty defendants to be left unpunished.  The number of "unpunished" crimes would likely be astronomically higher than the number of innocent defendants we have today.

 

The reason we have the system currently in place is because it is as close to a workable solution as we can find.  There is no perfect system.  Unfortunately, all systems (legal, political, social, economic, etc) are a balance of competing issues, and many times it is a zero sum game (as it is in the legal system).  For every winner on one side, there's at least one loser on the other.

[E4 No More]

Or if those prosecutors could be held personally responsible for egregious failures that would be great too. 

 

I have always said, even when I worked in LE, that if an officer does wrong and gets sued he should have to bear some, if not all, of the financial burden if he is found guilty.

 

As it stands right now an officer can do some absolutely heinous things and the city/county are the ones who pay, not the officer. And that isn't isolated cases but every single case I have ever seen or heard about. Not once has an officer had to pay financially for their defense or, if they are found guilty, damages. This is how it goes the vast majority of times I have witnessed it: The officer screws up, someone sues the officer, city/county, city/county picks of the cost of defense, city/county settles out of court, officer either goes back to work or resigns to go work somewhere else. In the end the officer doesn't owe a single dime yet the taxpayers have to pay more in taxes because of it, either through increased insurance premiums or to pay the actual settlement.

Yep, because the lawyers want to go after the deep pockets where they know they'll get paid. IIRC, an officer can be personally held responsible for part of the judgement, but it's pretty well established that you'll collect very little of it.

[midtennchip]

Or if those prosecutors could be held personally responsible for egregious failures that would be great too. 

 

I have always said, even when I worked in LE, that if an officer does wrong and gets sued he should have to bear some, if not all, of the financial burden if he is found guilty.

 

As it stands right now an officer can do some absolutely heinous things and the city/county are the ones who pay, not the officer. And that isn't isolated cases but every single case I have ever seen or heard about. Not once has an officer had to pay financially for their defense or, if they are found guilty, damages. This is how it goes the vast majority of times I have witnessed it: The officer screws up, someone sues the officer, city/county, city/county picks of the cost of defense, city/county settles out of court, officer either goes back to work or resigns to go work somewhere else. In the end the officer doesn't owe a single dime yet the taxpayers have to pay more in taxes because of it, either through increased insurance premiums or to pay the actual settlement.

 

I agree here.  There should be punishment for egregious breakdowns in the system (for LEO, prosecutors, etc).  

[E4 No More]

That is true.  Being a criminal defendant, particularly one who is wrongly accused, is generally an expensive proposition.  However, putting those kinds of constraints on the prosecution would also cause a LARGE number of truly guilty defendants to be left unpunished.  The number of "unpunished" crimes would likely be astronomically higher than the number of innocent defendants we have today.

 

The reason we have the system currently in place is because it is as close to a workable solution as we can find.  There is no perfect system.  Unfortunately, all systems (legal, political, social, economic, etc) are a balance of competing issues, and many times it is a zero sum game (as it is in the legal system).  For every winner on one side, there's at least one loser on the other.

But isn't the premise behind the legal system not only that one is innocent before PROVEN guilty, but also to take extraordinary measures to prevent the conviction of the innocent? I forget the saying, but it was something like 1,000 should go free before an innocent is wrongly convicted. I used to be a big proponent of the death penalty, but with today's science demonstrating how many inncoents are wrongly convicted it makes me wonder how many innocents have been put to death by mistake.

Edited July 8, 2014 by SWJewellTN

[midtennchip]

But isn't the premise behind the legal system not only that one is innocent before PROVEN guilty, but also to take extraordinary measures to prevent the conviction of the innocent? I forget the saying, but it was something like 1,000 should go free before an innocent is wrongly convicted. I used to be a big proponent of the death penalty, but with today's science demonstrating how many inncoents are wrongly convicted it makes me wonder how many innocents have been put to death by mistake.

 

Agreed.  However, many people don't agree.  And that's really my point.  Our legal system has many competing interests and almost everyone is unhappy with it at times.  Justice is in the eye of the beholder.  Where some see justice being served, others see injustice (and vice versa).

 

For example, in the specific case being discussed in this thread, the issue wasn't that a rich person got away with something because he could afford a great lawyer.  Rather, it appears that the punishment might not have been sufficient.  I personally agree, but that's not really my point.  

 

The solution you mentioned likely wouldn't result in 1,000 to 1 odds.  Rather, you'd have tens of thousands of criminals going free for every one innocent person that wasn't convicted.   Theoretically, we could guarantee no wrongful convictions simply by not prosecuting anybody.  I don't think that's what you are suggesting, but the simple fact of having prosecutions virtually guarantees that there will be wrongly accused (and sometimes wrongly convicted) people.  

 

Our system already takes more measures to prevent wrongful conviction than just about any other legal system in the history of the world.  But as long as people are involved in the process, there are going to be some mistakes.  

[RobertNashville]

I know out system isn't perfect but I've yet to see a better one out there anywhere and most of the suggestions I've heard for "improving it" I'm convinced would only make things worse. The worst part about our legal system as I see it is that people are involved and any system we could create to take its placed would have the same problem! :)