Legal (Justice) System

[midtennchip]

I am putting is here because of a previous discussion in this forum. Just a reminder of what we have in relation to other countries and the differing views on what "justice" means. The article below is about proposals in New Zealand to do away with either (I) the right to remain silence or (ii) the assumption of innocence in rape cases. Both sides (both of which are proposing things to reduce defendants' rights) say the reforms are needed to obtain "justice" (rather than get justice for the defendant). You will notice that rape cases there have had a much easier burden of proof than we have in the US since the 1980s.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11291109

The point is that everyone has a different view of what "justice" means and how to get it. Our system is far from perfect, but I can't imagine having a system like what is being proposed in New Zealand. However, this isn't the first time the right to remain silent has been challenged in NZ.

[DaveTN]

As a Police Officer I cuffed and stuffed people took them to jail where they stayed until they could post a bond. So forgive me if I laugh when I hear innocent until proven guilty. A person should not have to be taken into custody unless they are a (in the eyes of the investigating Officers or a Judge) a threat to someone. How does putting up money make them less of a threat?

The right to remain silent isn’t an issue. Everyone knows they have that right. Most of the time you can’t shut people up, then they want to use Miranda to get the statements they made thrown out of court. Even when they sign a waiver they will try to get statements thrown out; I don’t see anything changing here.

Two of the other big problems I have seen is you buy your level of “justice”. Some people can’t afford the best attorney. The other issue is you are rarely paying for their courtroom experience; but who they know to make the best deal. How many of your cases go to a full trial?

It’s still a good system; it just isn’t a “Justice for all” system. Could it be made a better system without more of a burden on taxpayers; probably not.

[RED333]

As of now we still live in the best country on earth, I do not know of any other country that has the freedoms we have.

We have the longest standing form of government on earth.

[peejman]

As a Police Officer I cuffed and stuffed people took them to jail where they stayed until they could post a bond. So forgive me if I laugh when I hear innocent until proven guilty. A person should not have to be taken into custody unless they are a (in the eyes of the investigating Officers or a Judge) a threat to someone. How does putting up money make them less of a threat?

The right to remain silent isn’t an issue. Everyone knows they have that right. Most of the time you can’t shut people up, then they want to use Miranda to get the statements they made thrown out of court. Even when they sign a waiver they will try to get statements thrown out; I don’t see anything changing here.

Two of the other big problems I have seen is you buy your level of “justice”. Some people can’t afford the best attorney. The other issue is you are rarely paying for their courtroom experience; but who they know to make the best deal. How many of your cases go to a full trial?

It’s still a good system; it just isn’t a “Justice for all” system. Could it be made a better system without more of a burden on taxpayers; probably not.

Agreed.

While our system is better than many others, it succeeds in some areas and fails miserably in others.

My general opinion is summed up pretty succinctly by Mr James Hetfield....

"...And Justice For All"

Halls of Justice Painted Green
Money Talking
Power Wolves Beset Your Door
Hear Them Stalking
Soon You'll Please Their Appetite
They Devour
Hammer of Justice Crushes You
Overpower

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

Apathy Their Stepping Stone
So Unfeeling
Hidden Deep Animosity
So Deceiving
Through Your Eyes Their Light Burns
Hoping to Find
Inquisition Sinking You
With Prying Minds

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price You Pay
Nothing Can Save You

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

Lady Justice Has Been Raped
Truth Assassin
Rolls of Red Tape Seal Your Lips
Now You're Done in
Their Money Tips Her Scales Again
Make Your Deal
Just What Is Truth? I Cannot Tell
Cannot Feel

The Ultimate in Vanity
Exploiting Their Supremacy
I Can't Believe the Things You Say
I Can't Believe
I Can't Believe the Price We Pay
Nothing Can Save Us

Justice Is Lost
Justice Is Raped
Justice Is Gone
Pulling Your Strings
Justice Is Done
Seeking No Truth
Winning Is All
Find it So Grim
So True
So Real

[midtennchip]

As a Police Officer I cuffed and stuffed people took them to jail where they stayed until they could post a bond. So forgive me if I laugh when I hear innocent until proven guilty. A person should not have to be taken into custody unless they are a (in the eyes of the investigating Officers or a Judge) a threat to someone. How does putting up money make them less of a threat?The right to remain silent isn’t an issue. Everyone knows they have that right. Most of the time you can’t shut people up, then they want to use Miranda to get the statements they made thrown out of court. Even when they sign a waiver they will try to get statements thrown out; I don’t see anything changing here.Two of the other big problems I have seen is you buy your level of “justice”. Some people can’t afford the best attorney. The other issue is you are rarely paying for their courtroom experience; but who they know to make the best deal. How many of your cases go to a full trial?It’s still a good system; it just isn’t a “Justice for all” system. Could it be made a better system without more of a burden on taxpayers; probably not.

It is funny (at least to me) how much everyone's view of our system is colored by the role each has been in when they come in contact with the system. Doesn't make them right or wrong, but just affected by the limited (in manner, not number) interaction. Some may remember the runaway that hid out in the woods in Williamson County a couple of months ago. I was in court the day his mother was in court on child abuse charges. I had a VERY different view of it after the hearing than the cops did (I am friends with a couple of them). The protestors (child abuse advocates) were appalled when the judge threw the charges out, but every attorney I talked to agreed the judge had no choice (who is a former prosecutor and US District Attorney). Cops still thought the judge got it wrong. Just different views because of different roles in the process, I guess.

The bond system is a place where work could be done, but overall, I have come to see the system as a pretty good balance. Some cases are a bit tilted to one side or another, but mostly gets it right. Where I see problems is in the people involved (i.e., a particular prosecutor, cop, judge, attorney, etc), not the system itself. Fortunately, even that is fairly rare. We just seem to hear about the bad ones.

[peejman]

It is funny (at least to me) how much everyone's view of our system is colored by the role each has been in when they come in contact with the system. Doesn't make them right or wrong, but just affected by the limited (in manner, not number) interaction. Some may remember the runaway that hid out in the woods in Williamson County a couple of months ago. I was in court the day his mother was in court on child abuse charges. I had a VERY different view of it after the hearing than the cops did (I am friends with a couple of them). The protestors (child abuse advocates) were appalled when the judge threw the charges out, but every attorney I talked to agreed the judge had no choice (who is a former prosecutor and US District Attorney). Cops still thought the judge got it wrong. Just different views because of different roles in the process, I guess.

The bond system is a place where work could be done, but overall, I have come to see the system as a pretty good balance. Some cases are a bit tilted to one side or another, but mostly gets it right. Where I see problems is in the people involved (i.e., a particular prosecutor, cop, judge, attorney, etc), not the system itself. Fortunately, even that is fairly rare. We just seem to hear about the bad ones.

 

 

Forgive my cynicism... can you provide any further detail regarding this case?  The idea that the judge "had no choice" to drop the charges" tells me there was some sort of snafu or loophole that required him to do that.  Stuff like that is exactly why I call it a legal system rather than a justice system.  But it's highly likely my flying leap to that conclusion is completely wrong. 

[monkeylizard]

We have the longest standing form of government on earth.

 

No, we don't. We have the longest standing federal constitutional government.* In other words, no other government that's structured like ours is older. The current UK parliamentary monarchy dates to either 1066 or 1660/1689, depending on one's perspective. Either way it's older than us. Then there's San Marino which goes back to somewhere around 300 A.D. and the Vatican** which dates back to 33 AD. It has controlled what is now Vatican City (and sometimes a whole lot more) since the 300's. Iceland has the longest standing legislative body dating back to 930, but they've not been independent the entire time (and Denmark suspended the legislature from 1799-1844) and only became the nation we know today in 1944.

 

*Sweden's constitution pre-dates us by a few years but they've had substantial changes to theirs, so it's debatable if they've been under the same form of government the entire time. They're also not a federal consitutional government.

 

**I suppose some times with the anti-popes, competing claims to the papal seat, and imprisonment by the French would mean you could argue it's younger than that, but it's still older than us no matter how you slice it.

Edited July 11, 2014 by monkeylizard

[midtennchip]

Forgive my cynicism... can you provide any further detail regarding this case?  The idea that the judge "had no choice" to drop the charges" tells me there was some sort of snafu or loophole that required him to do that.  Stuff like that is exactly why I call it a legal system rather than a justice system.  But it's highly likely my flying leap to that conclusion is completely wrong. 

 

Yeah, there was proof the "kid" was actually over 18 years old when it occurred.  Can't have child abuse if there's no child.  

 

Also, the ONLY abuse that was presented by the prosecution was making the kid do 1500 pushups in one day.  I understand from the cops involved that there was more to it than that, but the prosecution only brought out that issue.  Sounded funny (1500 pushups, really?) but after questioning in the probable cause hearing, it was pretty clear that the mother had tried many other forms of punishment to no avail.  Kid was in pretty good shape, I guess.  Not the way I would parent a child, but none of us lawyers in the courtroom (and I'm talking 20 or more) thought the prosecution had anything close to enough to go to trial.

[peejman]

So that would seem to indicate the prosecutor either didn't have time to prepare or didn't exactly finish at the top of his class.  No evidence of abuse prior to the boy turning 18 and I suppose the son chose not to pursue it.  I guess I'll showcase my ignorance of the system and ask how did that ever make to a court room?

[E4 No More]

Well, Chip, I'd say that what happens in New Zealand's legal system is irrelevant to what happens here just as is what happens in Russia's legal system. Compared to places like China we have a great justice system, but isn't that just like saying, "At least we aren't as screwed up as they are?" And justice is not limited only to the criminal system. There are the civil courts and in some states where traffic infractions are not "criminal" unlike how Tennessee does it if I understand their system correctly, (no, I don't claim to be an expert; I just think I saw something indicating that a traffic infraction was actually a misdemeanor in Tennessee).

 

I just think that we are far from what our Founding Fathers envisioned having used all sorts of rationale to justify getting there.

[midtennchip]

The reason for bringing it up was to illustrate that the idea of "justice" is different for everybody.

But, what do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned for a "justice system?"

[E4 No More]

Most of their vision is stated in the Constitution. I don't think that they envisioned judges being more concerned with revenue-collection than justice. I don't think they envisioned judicial or prosecutorial misconduct. I don't think that they envisioned bankrupting an innocent person to preserve a conviction rate. But I also don't think that they envisioned letting criminals walk on because of the lack of a Miranda Warning being given.

[midtennchip]

The Founding Fathers didn't have much to say in the Constitution itself regarding those issue, and had nothing to say about state criminal courts (which was the focus of the other thread). But they certainly did envision judicial misconduct. It was specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and a SCOTUS was charged with misconduct as early as 1805.

They probably didn't foresee prosecutorial misconduct because the public prosecutor was a VERY new creation and private prosecution of crimes was still more common. So, "conviction rates" didn't exist. Maybe a defendant wouldn't go bankrupt (mainly because trials occurred very quickly), but it wasn't unusual at all for victim's who had money to prosecute privately (so imagine the disparity between rich and poor in criminal actions). If you had money in early America, you certainly had a much larger advantage in criminal courts (both as defendant and victim) than exists today. That doesn't seem to be closer to a "justice" system than we have today. Edited July 14, 2014 by midtennchip

[monkeylizard]

Plus, at our FF's time, juries were made of white male landowners. Good luck with a fair trial if you're being accused by a white landowning male if you are not all, or any, of those three things.

[300winmag]

I don't think the Founders envisioned a system where the interstate commerce clause would be used to regulate everything to death.

[E4 No More]

Nor did they envision seizure of property without due process, judges using contempt of court to violate free speech, restriction of the 2nd, etc.