Moderate71
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2018
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 36
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Let's say that our criminal justice system has found that beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is the most likely suspect to have committed the crime. Should there be any punishment for that type of verdict? Perhaps there could be a reduced penalty.
If it is a most likely situation then it is not beyond reasonable doubt. It's not justice if you punish the wrong person just to punish someone.Let's say that our criminal justice system has found that beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is the most likely suspect to have committed the crime. Should there be any punishment for that type of verdict? Perhaps there could be a reduced penalty.
If it is a most likely situation then it is not beyond reasonable doubt. It's not justice if you punish the wrong person just to punish someone.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Like I said, they have found that beyond a reasonable doubt, he is the most likely suspect. A theory can never be disproven without a better theory to replace it.
Like I said, they have found that beyond a reasonable doubt, he is the most likely suspect. A theory can never be disproven without a better theory to replace it.
Again, one is not found "the most likely suspect." One is found GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now it is true this does not mean with 100% certainty the person is actually guilty of the crime. We have evidence in the form of the Innocence Project to show that some people were wrongly convicted.
However, the person found guilty is not considered a "suspect" but rather a perpetrator, and once this is determined then a Judge passes sentence as prescribed by law.
A theory can never be disparaged without a better theory to replace it. You can't argue against the theory of his guilt without providing a better suspect to replace him with.
We already disadvantage the prosecution in so many ways it's ridiculous. They start the trial with the jury coming in out of nowhere for crying out loud. The police and the prosecutor have no chance to meet with the jury and educate them on the facts of the case before the prosecutor selects a judge and the defendant is brought before the court and informed of what he is being accused of. People are getting away with crimes because of this.
Then, the prosecutor has to share all of his evidence with the defendant's lawyer beforehand so he can figure out a way to talk his way out of it ahead of time. He can't share it with the jury before the trial, except he has to share it with the defense before the trial. Doesn't this seem kind of backwards to you?
Let's say that our criminal justice system has found that beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is the most likely suspect to have committed the crime. Should there be any punishment for that type of verdict? Perhaps there could be a reduced penalty.
I'm sorry but I had to laugh at the bolded portion of your post above. "Burdened" the Prosecution?
The State starts off with a salaried investigation organization (the local police department) which is often supported by State funded or State paid Crime Scene Investigation resources. There is also the local Coroner's Office, as well as salaried psychologists and psychiatrists for mental evaluations. Their evidence is presented to the Prosecutor's office and if they deem it sufficient they pursue trial.
The defendant has only his own resources, and private defense is extremely costly. If the defendant runs out of funds, or is considered to otherwise qualify for the services of the Public Defender's office then all he has is the very limited resources of said office.
The overwhelming power of the State was so recognized by our Founding Fathers, no less than FIVE of the first 10 Amendments (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th) protect citizens facing criminal and civil actions.
The entire weight of the State against the defense...and you think the State is "burdened" by the requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? :roll:
So, does the prosecution get to educate the jury before the process starts? Does he have to present his evidence to the defense before the trial starts? In fact, in some way my ideas would benefit innocent defendants. The prosecutor can't proceed until he can convince the jury the defendant is guilty, so his name never gets drug through the media. Only at that point would the defendant be brought before the court and told to get a lawyer. After he gets a lawyer, he would then be informed of what the prosecutor has been able to convince a jury he is guilty of. If he pleads innocent, he and his lawyer would be informed of the evidence against him as it is brought before the court.
Let's say that our criminal justice system has found that beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is the most likely suspect to have committed the crime. Should there be any punishment for that type of verdict? Perhaps there could be a reduced penalty.
I am kind of lost here. It sounds more like you are trying to use the definition of a person legally found guilty of a crime for something other than being legally guilty of a crime.Like I said, they have found that beyond a reasonable doubt, he is the most likely suspect. A theory can never be disproven without a better theory to replace it.
I am kind of lost here. It sounds more like you are trying to use the definition of a person legally found guilty of a crime for something other than being legally guilty of a crime.
Are you saying that there is enough evidence that the person is most likely to have done it but not enough to show he did it?
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Why the need to re-write the legal code when its served the society as well as it has for as long as it has?
Why the need to re-write the legal code when its served the society as well as it has for as long as it has?
I wish there was a better word than NO or a better phrase then **** no !!!
because I cant plain and answer what a complete horrible and stupid idea this is and one i would never want in my country because it would no longer be the USA my country it would be something completely different. I like the rights we have and i dont want them stripped away. In fact i like them to get better not worse and this would make it worse.
grettingsGreetings, Agent J. :2wave:
:agree: Why would having a "likely suspect" be an improvement, and who would make that decision? I always thought that was why we have jury trials, to prevent such things from occurring! :thumbdown:
Because people are getting away with crimes. However, my system would be better for innocent people.
I wish there was a better word than NO or a better phrase then **** no !!!
because I cant plain and answer what a complete horrible and stupid idea this is and one i would never want in my country because it would no longer be the USA my country it would be something completely different. I like the rights we have and i dont want them stripped away. In fact i like them to get better not worse and this would make it worse.
There's no need to change the legal code. What he is describing sounds awfully close to a plea bargain. There's ample evidence innocent people pleading guilty because they didn't have the resources to legally defend themselves.
grettings
it wouldnt, you musta read something wrong i specifically said it would make it worse and its a horrible and stupid idea
And I agree 100 percent with your post!! It's one of the worse ideas I've heard in a long time! :2mad:
me too . . . one of the worst in a long time . . .i dont even understand how anybody could see any logic in and why they would want to have less rights . . .its very weird
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?