- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well, let me see, if there's not enough evidence to convict you of a crime, does that mean you should have been tried in the first place? Are we all suspects of a crime until proven not guilty?
And this massive corruption is where?
Seriously, there is no guarantee in the constitution that the occasional mistake might not happen. It will. It sucks, but that is just the way it is, and it is a whole lot better than making random changes to a working system.
What a mature reply? I'm out of here. With your level of maturity I'm assuming you will run afoul of the law again.
Watch the movie which is based on a true story. We're talking about the entire New York police department during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. You think things have changed radically? In my little town, there's plenty of small and medium-size police corruption to fill the department. In LA, don't get me started.
No, it would just make prosecutorial misconduct more, and more prevalent because there would even be more pressure on them to get a conviction. This would undermine our whole court system.
Perhaps we should start repealing unnecessary victimless crimes in order to curb that problem.
Or it could mean that the defense lawyer was better than the DA lawyer. Or it could be that a crucial witness changed their mind about testifying. Or it could be any of a number of things. Your last sentence is a huge strawman and very cheap.
Only if there's some sort of accompanying misconduct, negligence or some such on the part of the officer. But in general, no.In general, would you agree with a new law that requires individual police officers to pay, out of their own pockets, all costs that accrue from a false or wrongfully charged crime?
The burden of evidence NEVER is on the defense, always on the prosecution. If there's not enough evidence to begin with, there should never have been a charge. Take my charge for instance. I'm prosecuted for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Given that I'm completely innocent of the crime, why is the D.A. moving forward with the charge? Would you like me to show you the toxicology report?
So you are claiming the whole police system is corrupt? A large portion of it?
A large portion. The big cities and the rural townships. What's left? Of course, we're not El Salvador, but I don't intend to condone our corruption because some police somewhere else in the world is more corrupt than we are.
It's not that, we need to stop equating prosecutorial success with the amount of convictions a prosecutor gets.
Then what defines success for the prosecution?
Or it could mean that the defense lawyer was better than the DA lawyer. Or it could be that a crucial witness changed their mind about testifying. Or it could be any of a number of things. Your last sentence is a huge strawman and very cheap.
Doing their job, and getting a conviction at all cost isn't their job.
And you have some sort of evidence to back this up?
Their job is to represent the government or "the people" and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a crime. If they don't, fine. The case is settled, but it doesn't negate the fact that the suspect could have possibly faced serious consequences and difficult financial straits as a result of the case, which was proven to be a waste of time and money of everyone involved.
But that doesn't mean that the courts(which are paid by our taxes, so in essence we would still be footing this bill) should pay because someone was found not guilty.
If it means the person in question felt severe damages as a result of their case, yes it should. If the court can issue punitive damages for private parties harming each other, certainly they can do it for the public harming a private party. After all, the convicts pay for their crimes, why shouldn't the court pay for its mistakes?
Well, let me see, if there's not enough evidence to convict you of a crime, does that mean you should have been tried in the first place? Are we all suspects of a crime until proven not guilty?
If you insist on a jury trial, the solicitor will be most reluctant to pursue one (they are expensive and very time consuming, and we don't have nearly enough courts to try all cases if everyone insisted on a jury trial), unless he is very nearly certain he can get a conviction. Now, once a while he will misjudge it and someone will walk, but most jury trials do end in conviction, and in punishment for making them go to all that bother they will probably give you a stiff sentence, like the maximum.
The reality is that not many REALLY INNOCENT people reach the point of a jury trial. Some, yes... but the percentage is certainly small.
If you actually go through all that and are found not guilty, I can see making the State reimburse you for lost time/earnings while in jail, legal fees and so forth. After all, a "speedy trial" these days is a YEAR OR TWO. Can you imagine knowing that you're innocent and sitting in jail for two years because you were denied bond? Pretty horrible idea. Imagine you have small children while all this is going on; imagine your mortgage is foreclosed while you're not earning.
As for making cops pay for any kind of erroneous arrest out of their pockets.... basically you'd end up with cops refusing to arrest anybody without a signed confession and a bloody murder weapon AND a witness. Most cops don't make a lot of money and one such erroneous arrest would pretty much wipe them out financially. If you want anarchy and chaos by all means go ahead....
Please give us an example of a wrongful arrest.
Remarkably enough I have come very close to being wrongfully arrested on several occasions. Twice involved mistaken identity. In one case the witness recanted when he saw me close up. In the other case the cops let me go when they could not establish that I was the person for whom a felony warrant existed (guy with the same name except for middle). The other case was a bit more complex.... it involved a State Trooper who didn't know the law as well as he thought he did. I was in the right.... but if I'd pushed the matter on the side of the road I might have gone to jail. Instead I let him have his way and called the State AG when I got home and got the matter handled.
That's three times I nearly suffered a wrongful arrest... despite being an ex-cop.... so it's a good bet that it happens more often than some might like to think.
Now the truth of the matter? I'm pretty darn sure (from prior experience) that 96-98% of the people who are arrested and charged (and either tried or cop a plea) are far from innocent. But I think whenever we DO come up with one that is REALLY AND ACTUALLY INNOCENT (demonstrably so), that he ought to be compensated fully for any losses pertaining to his incarceration and trial. I'm convinced that wouldn't happen very often.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?