Should there be a most likely suspect verdict in our legal system with possibly a lesser sentence?

[Moderate71]

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

Here is why it would be better for the accused. Let's look at the process I am suggesting.

The police investigate for months, compiling evidence against you. They give it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a randomly selected jury and is only allowed to exclude one or two from the start. The prosecutor spends weeks educating the jury on the facts of the case. Only if the prosecutor is able to convince the jury you are guilty will you be so much as arrested. A judge is selected, you are arrested, brought before him, and told to get a lawyer (30 minutes to find one). After your lawyer is there, you and your lawyer are hauled before the court and you are then informed of what you have been accused of. In order to ensure your right to a speedy trial, you enter a plea on the spot and the trial starts immediately. The prosecutor and your lawyer both deliver impromptu opening statements. As the prosecutor presents evidence during the trial, your lawyer is made aware of it and allowed to present counter arguments on the spot. If you and your lawyer are able to change the jury's mind during the trial, you could be found either most likely suspect or innocent. If you and your lawyer are not able to change the jury's mind, you would be found guilty.

 

[AGENT J]

Civics education faltering perhaps?

i was thinking something circumstantial to ones life and selfish wants based on hurt and being screwed over.

Like maybe losing a spouse, parent, sibling, lover, kid etc to murder, rape or negligence and there just not being enough "without a doubt" evidence. Maybe there was only circumstantial evidence or evidence thrown out based on case mismanagement and so no a person is blinded by their hurt and rage where they cant see logic and or no longer care about the rights of others so they would want something like this in place.

that WOULD suck to be in that position ... BUT . . . . i STILL would never support such a horrendously stupid idea and want us all to have less rights over it

 

[eohrnberger]

i was thinking something circumstantial to ones life and selfish wants based on hurt and being screwed over.

Like maybe losing a spouse, parent, sibling, lover, kid etc to murder, rape or negligence and there just not being enough "without a doubt" evidence. Maybe there was only circumstantial evidence or evidence thrown out based on case mismanagement and so no a person is blinded by their hurt and rage where they cant see logic and or no longer care about the rights of others so they would want something like this in place.

that WOULD suck to be in that position ... BUT . . . . i STILL would never support such a horrendously stupid idea and want us all to have less rights over it

Hmm. True, that the legal system we have, and have had for some time, isn't perfect, and it's not a claim I've made.
But seems to me to be one of the better ones when thinking of the multitude of nations.
If only it wasn't so resource intensive, somehow.
But better that than incarcerate an innocent, but even that happens from time to time.

 

[AGENT J]

Here is why it would be better for the accused. Let's look at the process I am suggesting.

The police investigate for months, compiling evidence against you. They give it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a randomly selected jury and is only allowed to exclude one or two from the start. The prosecutor spends weeks educating the jury on the facts of the case. Only if the prosecutor is able to convince the jury you are guilty will you be so much as arrested. A judge is selected, you are arrested, brought before him, and told to get a lawyer (30 minutes to find one). After your lawyer is there, you and your lawyer are hauled before the court and you are then informed of what you have been accused of. In order to ensure your right to a speedy trial, you enter a plea on the spot and the trial starts immediately. As the prosecutor presents evidence during the trial, your lawyer is made aware of it and allowed to present counter arguments on the spot. If you and your lawyer are able to change the jury's mind during the trial, you could be found either most likely suspect or innocent. If you and your lawyer are not able to change the jury's mind, you would be found guilty.

oh i see, you are not from america and understand how our laws, courts and rights actually work. the above scenario is asinine and leaves out so much reality about how one has to be convicted BEYOND A REASONABLY DOUBT.
Next it ignores the HUGE glimmering hole of the opposite being true. . . im totally innocent but then the jury is convinced that it likely could be me .. now im ****ed and i go to jail or have a record because they were convinced its likely and dont have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .no thanks

you system would totally **** on every Americans rights and give us less of them and put way more innocent people in jail....

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Hmm. True, that the legal system we have, and have had for some time, isn't perfect, and it's not a claim I've made.
2.) But seems to me to be one of the better ones when thinking of the multitude of nations.
3.) If only it wasn't so resource intensive, somehow.

1.) i understand thats not the claim you made, didnt mean to imply such i was just answering your question. In my head instead of assuming the OP idea was based on pure ignorance i came up with a possibility that was based on personal loss or trauma . . guess it was just me being the optimist i am lol
2.) totally agree . . . the problem is its stil based on man and man is corrupt. so we just HOPE theres enough of us not corrupt to keep the ship straight
3.) that is a draw back but unfortunately it has to be . . . maybe one day artificial intelligence, algorithms and pure logistics/mathematics will be able to run it lol

 

[eohrnberger]

1.) i understand thats not the claim you made, didnt mean to imply such i was just answering your question. In my head instead of assuming the OP idea was based on pure ignorance i came up with a possibility that was based on personal loss or trauma . . guess it was just me being the optimist i am lol
2.) totally agree . . . the problem is its stil based on man and man is corrupt. so we just HOPE theres enough of us not corrupt to keep the ship straight
3.) that is a draw back but unfortunately it has to be . . . maybe one day artificial intelligence, algorithms and pure logistics/mathematics will be able to run it lol

No, I didn't mean to say that you were saying that I said . . . , oh forget it. We've good here.

OP based on ignorance? Yeah, could be, hence my 'failing civics education' comment.

Aaach. Yeah. Not so sure that I'd trust 'artificial intelligence, algorithms and pure logistics/mathematics' though. Even if costly, I still think there's some things that should remain in the hands of people, regardless of how flawed humans can be.

 

[SDET]

Here is why it would be better for the accused. Let's look at the process I am suggesting.

The police investigate for months, compiling evidence against you. They give it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a randomly selected jury and is only allowed to exclude one or two from the start. The prosecutor spends weeks educating the jury on the facts of the case. Only if the prosecutor is able to convince the jury you are guilty will you be so much as arrested. A judge is selected, you are arrested, brought before him, and told to get a lawyer (30 minutes to find one). After your lawyer is there, you and your lawyer are hauled before the court and you are then informed of what you have been accused of. In order to ensure your right to a speedy trial, you enter a plea on the spot and the trial starts immediately. The prosecutor and your lawyer both deliver impromptu opening statements. As the prosecutor presents evidence during the trial, your lawyer is made aware of it and allowed to present counter arguments on the spot. If you and your lawyer are able to change the jury's mind during the trial, you could be found either most likely suspect or innocent. If you and your lawyer are not able to change the jury's mind, you would be found guilty.

Why waste time with pesky things like discovery? It almost sounds like you're proposing changing the burden of proof to guilty until proven innocent once a grand jury indictment is handed down. Do you favor prosecutors being evaluated by their conviction rates?

 

[Moderate71]

Why waste time with pesky things like discovery? It almost sounds like you're proposing changing the burden of proof to guilty until proven innocent once a grand jury indictment is handed down. Do you favor prosecutors being evaluated by their conviction rates?

How about if we got rid of the most likely suspect verdict and forced either guilty or innocent? Does the rest of it sound good to you?

 

[SDET]

How about if we got rid of the most likely suspect verdict and forced either guilty or innocent? Does the rest of it sound good to you?

What if there's a 98% chance that no crime was committed and a 2% chance that a single person committed the act in question? Should that result in a conviction?

 

[Moderate71]

oh i see, you are not from america and understand how our laws, courts and rights actually work. the above scenario is asinine and leaves out so much reality about how one has to be convicted BEYOND A REASONABLY DOUBT.
Next it ignores the HUGE glimmering hole of the opposite being true. . . im totally innocent but then the jury is convinced that it likely could be me .. now im ****ed and i go to jail or have a record because they were convinced its likely and dont have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt . . . .no thanks

you system would totally **** on every Americans rights and give us less of them and put way more innocent people in jail....

How about without the most likely suspect verdict? Does the rest of it sound better than our current system? If the prosecutor can't initially convince the jury of your guilt, you don't get arrested and your name is not drug through the papers. Even if he can, you also get an extremely fast trial. The prosecutor and your lawyer both get to make impromptu opening statements. You and your lawyer will be given a chance to respond to evidence as it is presented and given a fair chance to un-convince the jury of your guilt.

 

[maquiscat]

I am saying that there is not enough evidence to say that he is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty, except he is more likely than anyone else to be guilty.

Than the answer still stands. Just because he or she is most likely does not mean that there is evidence enough to show they did it. Again it is not justice if you punish the wrong person just to have someone punished for the crime.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Because people are getting away with crimes. However, my system would be better for innocent people.

Bull crap! Your system has a higher probability of punishing an innocent just because evidence points to them without it being solid enough to ensure them. If you punish an innocent then the actual perpetrator still gets away with the crime. How does that help?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

How about without the most likely suspect verdict? Does the rest of it sound better than our current system? If the prosecutor can't initially convince the jury of your guilt, you don't get arrested and your name is not drug through the papers. Even if he can, you also get an extremely fast trial. The prosecutor and your lawyer both get to make impromptu opening statements. You and your lawyer will be given a chance to respond to evidence as it is presented and given a fair chance to un-convince the jury of your guilt.

what country are you from. What are you talking about.
In criminal cases there is no jury until there is ENOUGH evidence to go to trial . . .a judge decides that . . . then when you go to trial you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that system is just fine with me and works pretty well minus human corruption.

What you suggest would make it worse and allow more room for corruption.

 

[Moderate71]

Than the answer still stands. Just because he or she is most likely does not mean that there is evidence enough to show they did it. Again it is not justice if you punish the wrong person just to have someone punished for the crime.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

So, the only concern you have with the suggestions I have made is with the most likely suspect verdict? Do the rest of the ideas sound good?

 

[AGENT J]

Because people are getting away with crimes. However, my system would be better for innocent people.

No it would not on any level it would be much worse for innocent people . . .it would take away all of our rights and put a lot more innocent people in jail or give them a record, its absurd to think otherwise.

 

[maquiscat]

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.

Logic isn't your strong suit is it. Ok let's say that you initially gather up what evidence you can find and it all points to person A as the perpetrator. Then afterwards evidence arises in the form of a video AND a witness placing person A solidly somewhere else at the time of the crime. We've now argued against his guilt without 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

That is why experts are called, to educate the jury in areas they are most likely not knowledgeable on. We WANT the jury coming out of nowhere as much as possible to ensure that they won't be biased one way or the other.

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.

People are informed of what they are accused of when they are arrested and processed. If new charges are added, they are informed of that as well . And the prosecutor doesn't get to select the judge. Hell if he did then there would be a higher conviction rate since he would pick one he knows will rule in his favor.

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?

No it doesn't. First off the burden should always be to prove the guilt, not the innocence. The defense's job is to look at the prosecution's evidence and see if and where it doesn't hold up. He needs time to research it prior to the trial. Otherwise, the trial would have to recess Everytime new evidence is presented, resulting in tying up the system even more. And as I said before, the jury needs to come into it cold so as not to be prejudice.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Moderate71]

Logic isn't your strong suit is it. Ok let's say that you initially gather up what evidence you can find and it all points to person A as the perpetrator. Then afterwards evidence arises in the form of a video AND a witness placing person A solidly somewhere else at the time of the crime. We've now argued against his guilt without a better suspect to replace him with.



That is why experts are called, to educate the jury in areas they are most likely not knowledgeable on. We WANT the jury coming out of nowhere as much as possible to ensure that they won't be biased one way or the other.



People are informed of what they are accused of when they are arrested and processed. If new charges are added, they are informed of that as well . And the prosecutor doesn't get to select the judge. Hell if he did then there would be a higher conviction rate since he would pick one he knows will rule in his favor.



No it doesn't. First off the burden should always be to prove the guilt, not the innocence. The defense's job is to look at the prosecution's evidence and see if and where it doesn't hold up. He needs time to research it prior to the trial. Otherwise, the trial would have to recess Everytime new evidence is presented, resulting in tying up the system even more. And as I said before, the jury needs to come into it cold so as not to be prejudice.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

The prosecutor is an expert and he will meet with the jury in private before the trial and educate them in an impartial manner. Your lawyer gets a chance to un-convince during the trial afterwards. Also, the trial does not have to recess when new evidence is presented. The defense lawyer can address it on the spot.

 

[maquiscat]

Here is why it would be better for the accused. Let's look at the process I am suggesting.

The police investigate for months, compiling evidence against you. They give it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor gets a randomly selected jury and is only allowed to exclude one or two from the start. The prosecutor spends weeks educating the jury on the facts of the case. Only if the prosecutor is able to convince the jury you are guilty will you be so much as arrested. A judge is selected, you are arrested, brought before him, and told to get a lawyer (30 minutes to find one). After your lawyer is there, you and your lawyer are hauled before the court and you are then informed of what you have been accused of. In order to ensure your right to a speedy trial, you enter a plea on the spot and the trial starts immediately. The prosecutor and your lawyer both deliver impromptu opening statements. As the prosecutor presents evidence during the trial, your lawyer is made aware of it and allowed to present counter arguments on the spot. If you and your lawyer are able to change the jury's mind during the trial, you could be found either most likely suspect or innocent. If you and your lawyer are not able to change the jury's mind, you would be found guilty.

This whole thing is screwed up and against an innocent. 30 minutes is not enough time to get any kind of lawyer, not even a public defender. Additionally how is defense supposed to produce evidence that counters the prosecution's if there is no time ahead to find it? The prosecutor would not be delivering an impromptu opening argument. He would have all the time he was investigating to develop his opening remarks. This has all the hallmark of a kangaroo court, that is more.worried about punishing some one even if it is.not the guilty party.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

The prosecutor is an expert and he will meet with the jury in private before the trial and educate them in an impartial manner. Your lawyer gets a chance to un-convince during the trial afterwards. Also, the trial does not have to recess when new evidence is presented. The defense lawyer can address it on the spot.

How? How is the defense supposed to address a piece of evidence without time to check it out?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Moderate71]

One more thing I forgot. If you plead innocent and you are found guilty, the court is effeively finding you guilty of perjury because you lied under oath when you said you were innocent. Therefore, you would get a perjury charge tacked onto your conviction.

 

[maquiscat]

One more thing I forgot. If you plead innocent and you are found guilty, the court is effeively finding you guilty of perjury because you lied under oath when you said you were innocent. Therefore, you would get a perjury charge tacked onto your conviction.

Here's the thing. You don't plead innocent. You please not guilty. Additionally, you could get charged for say Murder 1 and plea not guilty, not because you didn't kill the man, but believe that what happened was manslaughter not murder. That's not perjury. You plan to add on additional punishment for something they may not actually be guilty of. For it to be perjury, they have to say something other than what they believe or know to be true.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[bearpoker]

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?

Maybe you'd be happier with a justice system in China. We like what we have here.

 

[Moderate71]

Here's the thing. You don't plead innocent. You please not guilty. Additionally, you could get charged for say Murder 1 and plea not guilty, not because you didn't kill the man, but believe that what happened was manslaughter not murder. That's not perjury. You plan to add on additional punishment for something they may not actually be guilty of. For it to be perjury, they have to say something other than what they believe or know to be true.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

If you plead not guilty and the court finds you guilty, they have found that you lied and perjured yourself.

 

[Ikari]

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.

Nope. For criminal courts it must be beyond a reasonable doubt.