Rights, guilt and innocence

[Slytovhand]

yeah gang.. I'm back again...<sigh>

Anyway... I've been flicking through a couple of the posts here, most particularly the one about the death penalty, but also Rahmota's "You're in charge".

I'm not sure where I stand on this but...

There are a lot of guilty that go free due to legal technicalities. Or, after the trial has been and gone, they find new damning evidence, but because they've already been tried for that crime, they can't be again.

There are a few innocent that get convicted for similar reasons (or are unable to appeal).

So.. where 'should' the line be drawn about how an investigation and trial should be conducted?

I find it pretty abhorrent in this society that proof of wrongdoing can get thrown out (and thus, a guaranteed criminal allowed free) because someone didn't get the right bit of paper signed by the right person in the right time for the right bin...

Similarly... I also find it a bit ridiculous to say that certain evidence can't be presented because a certain lawyer sucked at their job, and didn't present it the first time (or argue it correctly the first time), so can't be rehashed at an appeal. (I am reminded of the story of the US boxer known as 'The Hurricane' - although I admit, my only knowledge of this comes from the movie...I just recall the ending to it).


so... thoughts anyone?

[Ree]

Unfortunately, to protect the rights of the innocent, the guilty do go free on technicalities.

There have to be checks and balances, and there has to be a way to stop malicious prosecution.
Some of these loopholes in the legal system came about because of the McCarthy era "witchhunts" and the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, where people were being charged and found guilty simply because of their past involvements with certain groups or because of their personal beliefs.

In the case of many of the early Civil Rights leaders, if the police couldn't make a case on one thing, they would dig until they were able to make a case on another, and the prior bad acts were used against them in court to bolster those weak cases.

In that famous Canadian case of Steven Truscott, the police decided they had their guilty party, so they made the evidence fit the suspect and a possibly innocent 14 year old boy was sentenced to hang. Only recently, he was acquitted of the crime after over 46 years, when a court rued that numerous mistakes had been made in his trial, and there had been a miscarriage of justice.
They never said he was innocent. He was not able to use DNA because the evidence was too old, so they could not rule him innocent beyond reasonable doubt. He was acquitted based on the mistakes made during the investigation and trial.

So, yes, it's true that the guilty go free, and it's sickening, but it has to be that way to prevent you or me from being dragged out of our bed at night to face a judge who then orders us locked up from society or even executed at dawn.

We live in a society with the belief that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than to incarcerate 1 innocent man.

[ebonyknight]

Unfortunately, to protect the rights of the innocent, the guilty do go free on technicalities.

There have to be checks and balances, and there has to be a way to stop malicious prosecution.
Some of these loopholes in the legal system came about because of the McCarthy era "witchhunts" and the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, where people were being charged and found guilty simply because of their past involvements with certain groups or because of their personal beliefs.

In the case of many of the early Civil Rights leaders, if the police couldn't make a case on one thing, they would dig until they were able to make a case on another, and the prior bad acts were used against them in court to bolster those weak cases.

In that famous Canadian case of Steven Truscott, the police decided they had their guilty party, so they made the evidence fit the suspect and a possibly innocent 14 year old boy was sentenced to hang. Only recently, he was acquitted of the crime after over 46 years, when a court rued that numerous mistakes had been made in his trial, and there had been a miscarriage of justice.
They never said he was innocent. He was not able to use DNA because the evidence was too old, so they could not rule him innocent beyond reasonable doubt. He was acquitted based on the mistakes made during the investigation and trial.

So, yes, it's true that the guilty go free, and it's sickening, but it has to be that way to prevent you or me from being dragged out of our bed at night to face a judge who then orders us locked up from society or even executed at dawn.

We live in a society with the belief that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than to incarcerate 1 innocent man.

What he said. :D Especially, the last line sums it up.

[rahmota]

We live in a society with the belief that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than to incarcerate 1 innocent man
Well thats the society we are supposed to live in. It doesnt alawys work out that way though unfortunately. But yes to protect the innocent sometimes the guilty must go free. Otherwise if you take the opinion that the guilty should be punished at all expense the price could be a bit much.

[Boozy]

rahmota, correct me if I'm wrong, but have you not expressed support of the death penalty before?

Maybe I'm thinking of someone else. I'm too lazy to go back and read through this and other threads. :p

[MMATM]

I believe rahmota did at one point lend some support to the death penalty. Not positive though.

What she said. :D Especially, the last line sums it up.

Edited for accuracy.

I'm a proponent of the death penalty, but only in really heinous cases. I'm also not a fan of "humane" execution by needle, firstly because it's too expensive (bullets are cheaper) and secondly because it's really not as humane as people make it out to be (bullets are also more humane).

The only real benefit of lethal injection is that it doesn't leave much of a mark so the coroner has less work to do. And to a lesser extent that people think it's a more "clean" way to do things, and doesn't smack of fascist or communist executions as much as the gun -> head method.

However, I agree with Ree in that one innocent person being convicted is far worse than ten guilty people being set free. Especially since once innocents being convicted becomes the status quo, Americans' (and some other nations') delicate illusion of safety and trust in the justice system will be gone.

[BlackIronCrown]

Well thats the society we are supposed to live in. It doesnt alawys work out that way though unfortunately. But yes to protect the innocent sometimes the guilty must go free. Otherwise if you take the opinion that the guilty should be punished at all expense the price could be a bit much.

True.
Of course, this leads us to a dilemma; the 10 guilty should NOT go free. However, the law MUST be obeyed, because it is the law.

I would propose that we should retrun to an earlier viewpoint where people feared to get involved in the legal system, for the Law is Great and Terrible. In Imperial China, both plaintiff and defendant would be required to kneel on stone floors before the magistrate and conduct their proceedings with the greatest of deference while bailiffs looked on armed with whips and cudgels. If the magistrate believed his time was being wasted (ie, frivolous lawsuit), he was allowed to order lashes to be given to the one who initiated the foolishness ($65 million dollar pants lawsuit, anyone?). People were afraid of the court - not because they would not be fairly heard, but because of the awful majesty of the law and harshness of its punishments.

Thus empowered, the courts might have less problems with technicalities. Or perhaps it is merely the punishments that need to become more fearful. One would think that a few public hangings and whippings would keep the criminals in line...

[rahmota]

rahmota, correct me if I'm wrong, but have you not expressed support of the death penalty before?

Yes yes I have. And just to recap and expound upon that I believe in the death penalty when:
1) The case is so dead bang airtight, for sure irrefutable that perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher couldnt get the guy off
2) the scientific evidence is such that it leads to #1
3) the crime is less than 99.99% certain but more than 90% certain to have been done by this person but is so heinous and the person such a waste of flesh that it will not harm society to remove them from the gene pool.ie jeff dahlmer, wayne gacey. you know you mass murdering eat their liver dismember the person and store them in their freezer kind of psycho killers. Fortunately those are rather rare (but if you keep them on the chair long enough they wont be...:rolleyes:) so the first two are more likely.

call it deterennce, call it punishment, heck call it revenge if you will but sometimes putting a mad dog down is better than letting them live. Even if it is in a 8*10 cement box for the rest of their life.

[rahmota]

I would propose that we should retrun to an earlier viewpoint where people feared to get involved in the legal system, for the Law is Great and Terrible. In Imperial China, both plaintiff and defendant would be required to kneel on stone floors before the magistrate and conduct their proceedings with the greatest of deference while bailiffs looked on armed with whips and cudgels. If the magistrate believed his time was being wasted (ie, frivolous lawsuit), he was allowed to order lashes to be given to the one who initiated the foolishness ($65 million dollar pants lawsuit, anyone?). People were afraid of the court - not because they would not be fairly heard, but because of the awful majesty of the law and harshness of its punishments.

Okay. i wanted to stop and think for a moment before replying to this one.

While I agree with you that we should develop in our society a healthy respect bordering mayhaps on fear of the legal system goign back to ancient china style might be a bit much. And as much as I laugh at the image of $1500 armani clad lawyers kneeling before the judge while getting lashed across the back (I think I saw that movie on the pron channel once...:p) somehow I dont think that reform would go over very well either.

When i was in court for my troubles there was kid in front of me up on drug charges who definately did not take the situation seriously, actually laughed at the judge and shrugged his shoulders at his sentence. It was all a big joke to him. That kind of attitude is part of the trouble and lack of civic knowledge/responsibility in the hearts and minds of the american citizen.

One would think that a few public hangings and whippings would keep the criminals in line... hmm well as much as the lord loves a hanging (from an old very bad taste song I know) there is that part in the us Constitution about cruel and unusual punishments not being kosher eh? Not to mention that small section of society that would probably overly enjoy such spectacles.

As messed up and flawed as our criminal justice system and civil courts are they are still better than many in the world. And things could be made better but look at the you're in charge thread as to how even in this microcosm of the country/world we cant get everyone to agree on everything. So compromises would have to be made. the trick is to find the least painful for all invovled compromise and make it work.

[Slytovhand]

Ok peoples... I'm not sure if my actual intent on this thread was taken fully into account (but.. hey... I could be wrong.

I'm asking about the technicalities....

The police get the search warrant, they go to the house - there are 15 bodies in there, the murder has written a confession on the computer along with all the photos and video evidence as .avi... there is no question of guilt...

But at the trial, it turns out that the search warrant was written up for 12 instead of 21 Murderer Blvd... legal technicality... case thrown out, person cannot be tried for those 15 murders ever again...... sort of the stuff the aforementioned perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher just love (thanks for the copy and paste, Rahmota :D)


Does this make any difference to the thread?

Or perhaps... not??


EDIT: btw - I'm not legal-ese, so the above example could be crap... but you get the point...

[Ree]

I'm asking about the technicalities....

The police get the search warrant, they go to the house - there are 15 bodies in there, the murder has written a confession on the computer along with all the photos and video evidence as .avi... there is no question of guilt...

But at the trial, it turns out that the search warrant was written up for 12 instead of 21 Murderer Blvd... legal technicality... case thrown out, person cannot be tried for those 15 murders ever again...... Well, in the above example, the judge would have to rule on whether it was a valid search warrant, and if it wasn't valid, then anything arising from that warrant would be thrown out.

It sucks, of course, but the loophole is to protect the innocent and keep the police honest.
They have to be pretty darn specific on their warrants to prevent them from executing a warrant on a hunch and just going in to see what they can find to back up that hunch.

We are talking about a person's life and so, accuracy is pretty darned important. Before a case even heads to court, all the i's should be dotted, and t's should be crossed.

[ebonyknight]

Ok peoples... I'm not sure if my actual intent on this thread was taken fully into account (but.. hey... I could be wrong.

I'm asking about the technicalities....

The police get the search warrant, they go to the house - there are 15 bodies in there, the murder has written a confession on the computer along with all the photos and video evidence as .avi... there is no question of guilt...

But at the trial, it turns out that the search warrant was written up for 12 instead of 21 Murderer Blvd... legal technicality... case thrown out, person cannot be tried for those 15 murders ever again...... sort of the stuff the aforementioned perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher just love (thanks for the copy and paste, Rahmota :D)


Does this make any difference to the thread?

Or perhaps... not??


EDIT: btw - I'm not legal-ese, so the above example could be crap... but you get the point...


Well, in the above example, the judge would have to rule on whether it was a valid search warrant, and if it wasn't valid, then anything arising from that warrant would be thrown out.

It sucks, of course, but the loophole is to protect the innocent and keep the police honest.
They have to be pretty darn specific on their warrants to prevent them from executing a warrant on a hunch and just going in to see what they can find to back up that hunch.

We are talking about a person's life and so, accuracy is pretty darned important. Before a case even heads to court, all the i's should be dotted, and t's should be crossed.

I thought SHE :) answered the question properly the first time. The law is written to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. Which is why there must be no reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

There were too many opportunities for people to be unfairly convicted for other than legal reasons. As an AA, I know there were too many cases of black people being killed and lynched for no other reason than they were black having been accused of doing wrong to a white.

Although I still believe this occurs institutionally rather than on a case by case basis, it is definitely better than it was.

Again it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent person to be wrongly convicted. I don't think there is any room for misinterpretation there. And I don't see why the question needed to be "clarified".

[Slytovhand]

And I don't see why the question needed to be "clarified".

Because the examples offered to support her argument were about miscarriages of justice, not legal technicalities. They were about trying 'prove' a guilt or innocence where none existed, and doing it in any way possible. So I don't see a direct connection between the 2 (the OP vs the miscarriages.... other than I would think that most legal technicalities of they type I am envisioning in fact are a miscarriage of justice - rather than law).

The point of the thread is where the guilt or innocence is 100% definite, but the law isn't allowed to rule in that direction because of the technicality...hence my extreme example.

Slyt

[Ree]

Because the examples offered to support her argument were about miscarriages of justice, not legal technicalities. Actually, if you had read more carefully, you would have seen that it was about the technicalities.

My point was that these technicalities and loopholes exist because of prior miscarriages of justice. Obviously, precedents have been set on appeal of certain cases, and that is what lawyers use to argue their cases and subsequent appeals.
Using the example offered about the search warrant (and I'm not sure, either, if an incorrect address would get a warrant thrown out, but let's use it) perhaps there was a prior case where a warrant was executed with the wrong details, resulting in a bad conviction that was overturned on appeal, and that is what the current suspect's lawyer used to get that warrant tossed, even though the client may be guilty as sin.

[Slytovhand]

Ok, sorry... I read it differently.

I'm just raising the point that guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant to the legal system - only procedure. And the jury, whose job it is to decide on that guilt or innocence, don't have access to all the facts pertaining to a case. And thus, it's not whether you did the crime or not, but how good your lawyer is.

In saying that, therefore, should a lawyer bear any penalty of a conviction if they are later found innocent - and vice versa? (given stipulations...). yeah - probably going too far, but given what I just said above....

[Seshat]

I'm just raising the point that guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant to the legal system - only procedure.

Legal procedure is like scientific method: it's imperfect, but it's the best way mankind has found so far to obtain the desired result, while allowing for human fallibility.

In the case of science, the desired result is an ever-closer approximation of how the natural world works.

In the case of legal procedure, the desired result is catching as many criminals as possible while not falsely punishing the innocent.

And the jury, whose job it is to decide on that guilt or innocence, don't have access to all the facts pertaining to a case.

The job of both attorneys is to provide and present all the facts pertaining to the case; while doing so in ways which do not infringe on the rights of the innocent.

Human nature being what it is, if the attorneys were permitted to include evidence obtained illegally, some would do so. And that would lead to innocent people's homes being invaded, evidence being fabricated, and all sorts of other abuses of rights.

We know it would, because it has in the past.

And thus, it's not whether you did the crime or not, but how good your lawyer is.

If both attorneys are equally competent, the trial is fair. If one attorney is outstanding and the other is competent, the trail is less fair, but the facts are still all present and the jury has a reasonable chance to do their job well.

Its only if one of the attorneys is incompetent that the jury doesn't get enough evidence.

In saying that, therefore, should a lawyer bear any penalty of a conviction if they are later found innocent - and vice versa? (given stipulations...). yeah - probably going too far, but given what I just said above....

No. A lawyer who has presented evidence properly, and presented the case for their side properly, has done their job. They should not be penalised because of a jury decision, nor because their opposition in a particular case was outstanding where they were merely competent.

However, incompetent lawyers should be penalised. And most first-world legal systems do provide avenues for penalising the incompetent.

[Slytovhand]

NOOOoooooooo!!!! - Not the 'scientific method' agian...:p :p

Okies Seshat... I liked what you said at the end (not to say I didn't appreciate the rest), about the incompetent lawyers... could be interesting... have you suggested it in 'You're in Charge'?

[Seshat]

No: I'm staying out of that thread. I realised rapidly that my own contributions would quickly become novel-length, and I'm not interested in writing that right now.

[crazylegs]

But at the trial, it turns out that the search warrant was written up for 12 instead of 21 Murderer Blvd... legal technicality... case thrown out, person cannot be tried for those 15 murders ever again...... sort of the stuff the aforementioned perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher just love (thanks for the copy and paste, Rahmota :D)

The rule for double jeopardy (sp?) has been removed from UK law for exceptional circumstances after the terrible investigation and piss poor work of the MPS after the killing of Stephen LAWRENCE, so not applicable over here guys, make of that what you will.

[rahmota]

SeshatNo: I'm staying out of that thread. I realised rapidly that my own contributions would quickly become novel-length, and I'm not interested in writing that right now.
Oh please!!!:D I have a feeling that your ideas would be really interesting. Maybe instead of a novel the cliff notes version...

I am envisioning in fact are a miscarriage of justice - rather than law The law isnt so much about justice per se but the law. Keeping order and control over the populace. Theoretically the law if followed will result in justice but that doesnt always work.

The rule for double jeopardy (sp?) has been removed from UK law for exceptional circumstances Wow. I'm not so sure I like that. Whats to keep the prosecutors/state from tryign again and again and again to get a conviction on someone if they dont get one the first time? Yeah it sucks sometimes but its a lot better for society as a whole if the state has more motivation to get their job done the right way the first time than to let them have too much power and too much time to keep hounding someone.

sort of the stuff the aforementioned perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher just love (thanks for the copy and paste, Rahmota ) No problem. Thinking about it that would be a scary dream team of lawyers/investigator for a prosecutor to face.

[Seshat]

The rule for double jeopardy (sp?) has been removed from UK law for exceptional circumstances after the terrible investigation and piss poor work of the MPS after the killing of Stephen LAWRENCE, so not applicable over here guys, make of that what you will.

Evolution of the judicial system. Another part of the ever-continuing attempt to approach a perfect 100% innocents free, 100% criminals caught.

We'll probably never achieve it. But we can keep trying to approach it.

Oh please!!! I have a feeling that your ideas would be really interesting. Maybe instead of a novel the cliff notes version...

Perhaps later, after it's settled down a little. I can go through and pick out the main points I disagree with, and provide my reasons.

Wow. I'm not so sure I like that. Whats to keep the prosecutors/state from tryign again and again and again to get a conviction on someone if they dont get one the first time?

If I recall correctly, in the UK, judges are chosen, not elected. It's the same in Australia. The judiciary is held to a subtly different standard than it is in the USA. 'Exceptional circumstances' in the UK will probably be genuinely exceptional, not 'well, this will be a high profile case and increase my chances of being re-elected'.

Also, the rules about what the courts can award are different. I'm not sure of the details, but I think the 'pain and suffering' or 'emotional damage' awards are different. We don't get the kind of high payments USA courts sometimes award, unless there's a damn good reason for it. This acts to discourage spurious lawsuits - you just don't 'win the lottery' out of lawsuits here.

Again, I'm not sure of the details, but lawyers can't be paid out of the court's award to the victim. Legal costs, if assigned in a court award, go from the court's hands to the lawyers, and have a maximum payment rate. This reduces the ambulance-chaser effect.

The differences are all subtle, but these subtle differences make for a very different legal culture.

[crazylegs]

If I recall correctly, in the UK, judges are chosen, not elected. It's the same in Australia. The judiciary is held to a subtly different standard than it is in the USA. 'Exceptional circumstances' in the UK will probably be genuinely exceptional, not 'well, this will be a high profile case and increase my chances of being re-elected'.

Spot on, there has to be a massive new piece(s) of evidence, rather than a 'lets try this one again' approach. As far as I'm aware the law isn't backwards compatible, so it can onlybe used from when the law was created rather than since the beginning of legal history.

[rahmota]

Perhaps later, after it's settled down a little. I can go through and pick out the main points I disagree with, and provide my reasons.
Okay cool. Somehow I get the feeling that it is going to be rather interesting to see them. Especially from an outsiders POV as to the states.

If I recall correctly, in the UK, judges are chosen, not elected. It's the same in Australia. The judiciary is held to a subtly different standard than it is in the USA. 'Exceptional circumstances' in the UK will probably be genuinely exceptional, not 'well, this will be a high profile case and increase my chances of being re-elected'.

Spot on, there has to be a massive new piece(s) of evidence, rather than a 'lets try this one again' approach. As far as I'm aware the law isn't backwards compatible, so it can onlybe used from when the law was created rather than since the beginning of legal history.
Okay another one of those cross cultural confusions we get so often. As long as there are plenty of restrictions and controls on it I guess it would be useful in someways. Still with the american tradition of law and the constitution I'm not sure how well that would reconcile over here.

[crazylegs]

Okay another one of those cross cultural confusions we get so often. As long as there are plenty of restrictions and controls on it I guess it would be useful in someways. Still with the american tradition of law and the constitution I'm not sure how well that would reconcile over here.

Have a read of this article about the Lawrence murder, it explains rather nicely about the crap investigation and show why the law was changed http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/feb/23/lawrence.ukcrime9

[rahmota]

Interesting. Souds like thigns where rather bungled but I'm still not sure I like the removeal of the double jeopardy rules even in a case like that. I mean yeah OJ wound up gong free too but there's a reason why the cops and prosecuters need to make sure they keep their I's dotted and T's crossed. Because there ahve been too many times where convictions happy prosecutors or governments (including those who have non-elected judges) wanted someone convicted so they kept trying to nail a person as often and as much as they could.

There must be as many restrictions as possible on the government's powers to persecute and prosecute the individual yet still as few restrictions that let them function. If in protecting the innocent a small few guilty get through too then oh well that is the price to be paid for haivng a free society. Its better to have too much freedom and be responsible for your own self that to have too little freedom and have to rely upon the state for permission to live your life.

[crazylegs]

Unless you've known the despair of seeing the ones responsible for murdering your son wander free because of incompetence I don't think any of us can truely see the reason for the law.

For those who have seen that darkness I suppose it must give some hope that eventually justice will be served.

[rahmota]

Legs: True I suppose. And while emotionally I can agree with wanting to ensure justice is served logically I am still uncomfortable with allowing the prosecution to have that much power or many chances. I'd rather they be held to a higher standard so that they dont screw up in the first place.

[rahmota]

I saw this on my local news and wondered how this fits into some peoples idea of how rights/guilt and innocence and punishment. ie punishment fitting the crime.

MCARTHUR, Ohio (AP) - A southern Ohio man has dodged what could have been another nine months in jail for sharing a Little Debbie snack cake with a fellow inmate.

The case involves 21-year-old Timothy Caudill, who last year was held in a residential community corrections program in Nelsonville for breaking into a bar. While there, prosecutors say he bought an oatmeal cream pie from a vending machine and shared it with a fellow inmate who wasn't allowed to eat the snack.

Prosecutors in Vinton County asked Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Simmons to revoke Caudill's probation and put him in prison for nine months.

Instead, Simmons says Caudill will spend 30 days behind bars and pay $1,500 for the jail stay.


I'm not exactly thinking that is fair or doesnt fall under excessive punishment. Also in the state of ohio they charge you rent for your stay in jail. ie it costs you 12-20 bucks a day in jail minimum up to a bunch more. Which I'm not too keen on as I see that as a double punishment. yeah I understand the state is goign broke and criminals need to be punished but fair and equitable punishment can be foud that does not put a burden or hardship on people who are in for minor stuff or because they are desperate or poor. (dont kid yourself being poor is reason enough to wind up in jail in some areas, they just call it vagrancy or pandering or somesuch trumped up crimes.)

Couldnt they have just taken his snack priviledges away too? Or somethign else without wanting to revoke probation and call for 9 months in state pen?

Anyhow if this is the wrong place move it as you will but I thought it would fit best in this thread. Thank you.

[Slytovhand]

WTF?????

9 months for sharing a snack??

And I'm pretty flabbergasted that the lawful community can dictate what a person can and cannot eat (if they aren't actually providing that food themselves...). It was a 'Residential Community' program.. not jail. (I wouldn't be having vending machines in jails, personally...).

But I agree with you on that Rah... worse case scenario... suspend the 'snack privelege'.

After all... is it about 'punishment' or 'deterrent'??? (ooh - another thread.. :p)

Slyt

[rahmota]

slytovhand: Yep just another example of how persecutorial our justice system has become. Trying to throw the book on people for petty BS to show how tough they are on crime but unable to deal with any really serious issues.