• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we change the judicial system?

Lutherf said:
Somebody would have to be willing to investigate that kind of thing and nobody is going to bother.
Click to expand...
According William Barr the investigation of who is behind the funding has already begun. He also called out George Soros for funding the races of radical prosecutors that refuse to do their job endangering public safety.
 
The American judicial system is good if it can ensure justice. What is the need for change? The main reason of American riots is the wrong idea. Some people think that they have been treated unfairly. In fact, they can not find a more fair treatment than the existing system of the United States. However, they hate the system. They should be grateful to the country and the system. They dream of subverting the system. What should be changed is themselves. It should be the American education system. The education system should reflect on the reasons for the opposition to the system
 
Brutal said:
I would agree with you except that ten years ago if you told people that there would be a law in California that would allow sex between a 14-year-old and a 24-year-old, they would have called it a "stupid hackish bait thread."

Just like allowing abortion up to and until the moment of birth would have been considered "stupid and hackish," yet here we are.
Click to expand...
There is no such law in California, you obviously don't have a clue what the law actually said or meant.
 
Lutherf said:
As things stand we have a system where the accused are afforded the presumption of innocence, allowed to defend themselves, are allowed to have witnesses on their own behalf and allowed to have an impartial jury.

Based on several recent cases (George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor and others) there is no question but that a whole lot of Americans are unhappy with that system. Should we change the laws and get rid of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments? Doing so would allow all investigation to be conducted through Twitter videos, blogs and chat rooms. There would be no requirement that accusers entertain counter-evidence and no requirement that one accused of a crime be afforded any defense whatsoever.

Would that solve the problem with riots? If we merely sacrificed a few freedoms in an effort to pacify a passionate, active and entitled segment of society that we know has already suffered hundreds of years of oppression would they stop their aggression and be satisfied?
Click to expand...

The judicial system could be improved as follows (as yes I know it would require Constitutional Amendments so is unlikely to ever happen). But for the sake of argument:-

1. Abandon the adversarial system of justice and replace with an inquisitorial system of justice
ie: scrap jury trials and replace with a bench of 3, 5 or 7 judges (some trained in things like financial fraud and tax law)
You'd still have lawyers but they would not be able to be showmen for a jury of 12 relatively uneducated and legally ignorant jurors

2. Introduce a third verdict. The verdicts available would be: "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven"
"guilty" would mean the bench thought the defendant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, "not guilty" would mean his/her innocence had been proven beyond reasonable doubt, "not proven" means that the burden of proof had not been met and the defendant might be guilty or innocent
This system of justice exists in Scotland Btw, and although a defendant found "not proven" walks, they can be tried again should more evidence arise

3. The penalties for being convicted are too abstract IMO
Justice systems should make the misery of incarceration more transparent.
People should be able to see first hand the consequences of conviction a lot more often on TV and the internet

4. However I believe that once a convict's time is served, they should be deemed to have "paid their debt" to society and have all citizen rights restored
(though clearly a convicted pedophile or a convicted murderer/armed robber should have their access to children and guns respectively, permanently restricted).
 
vesper said:
According William Barr the investigation of who is behind the funding has already begun. He also called out George Soros for funding the races of radical prosecutors that refuse to do their job endangering public safety.
Click to expand...
A claim without evidence
 
Lutherf said:
In another era it would be a laughable proposition. Today it is the reality that "Social Justice" demands. We are on the very edge of abandoning those rights I mentioned, as well as others.
Click to expand...

oh, the DRAMA
 
Perhaps it would help if we sedated the right until bionic neural technology advances enough to make empathy implantable. Until then, we can put them on Mars in their heads like Total Recall, but instead of pressing an alien handprint and making the planet better, they will play Angry Birds and post furious fox news article comments.
 
Helix said:
Perhaps it would help if we sedated the right until bionic neural technology advances enough to make empathy implantable. Until then, we can put them on Mars in their heads like Total Recall, but instead of pressing an alien handprint and making the planet better, they will play Angry Birds and post furious fox news article comments.
Click to expand...


Or induce them into a lucid dream (a la Vanilla Sky) where they can form a militia and fight alien predators...with batman.
 
Rich2018 said:
Or induce them into a lucid dream (a la Vanilla Sky) where they can form a militia and fight alien predators...with batman.
Click to expand...

Maybe Inception. They can report back and tell us if that top ever stopped spinning.
 
Helix said:
Maybe Inception. They can report back and tell us if that top ever stopped spinning.
Click to expand...

I didn't understand that movie

Maybe "Ready Player 1", and they can live for eternity in the Oasis.
 
Rich2018 said:
I didn't understand that movie

Maybe "Ready Player 1", and they can live for eternity in the Oasis.
Click to expand...

it was sort of left up in the air whether or not he made it out of the dream depths, if i remember correctly. i was hoping that he did, but i kind of thought that he didn't.
 
Junzhuo Gu said:
The American judicial system is good if it can ensure justice. What is the need for change? The main reason of American riots is the wrong idea. Some people think that they have been treated unfairly. In fact, they can not find a more fair treatment than the existing system of the United States. However, they hate the system. They should be grateful to the country and the system. They dream of subverting the system. What should be changed is themselves. It should be the American education system. The education system should reflect on the reasons for the opposition to the system
Click to expand...
So sit down and shut up and eat your peas. Jingoistic crap like this wont fly.
 
The stupid idea of everything that happens to you is your fault needs to end. Get some nuance.
 
Lutherf said:
As things stand we have a system where the accused are afforded the presumption of innocence, allowed to defend themselves, are allowed to have witnesses on their own behalf and allowed to have an impartial jury.

Based on several recent cases (George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor and others) there is no question but that a whole lot of Americans are unhappy with that system. Should we change the laws and get rid of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments? Doing so would allow all investigation to be conducted through Twitter videos, blogs and chat rooms. There would be no requirement that accusers entertain counter-evidence and no requirement that one accused of a crime be afforded any defense whatsoever.

Would that solve the problem with riots? If we merely sacrificed a few freedoms in an effort to pacify a passionate, active and entitled segment of society that we know has already suffered hundreds of years of oppression would they stop their aggression and be satisfied?
Click to expand...
I think blacks should just be exempt from all criminal laws. After all the criminal code only exists to incarcerate black men.
 
Mr Person said:
Lutherf doesn't seem to have been keeping up. Someone wanna explain to him that the legal process is being followed in each of the cases he mentioned, and that people are allowed to have opinions about a thing before a jury has issued a verdict?

For all his feigned reverence of the legal system, I wonder if Lutherf would throw some of his self-righteous fury at someone for suggesting that OJ was guilty despite acquittal.
Click to expand...
Are masses of people rioting that OJ was found not guilty?
 
Lutherf said:
As things stand we have a system where the accused are afforded the presumption of innocence, allowed to defend themselves, are allowed to have witnesses on their own behalf and allowed to have an impartial jury.

Based on several recent cases (George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor and others) there is no question but that a whole lot of Americans are unhappy with that system. Should we change the laws and get rid of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments? Doing so would allow all investigation to be conducted through Twitter videos, blogs and chat rooms. There would be no requirement that accusers entertain counter-evidence and no requirement that one accused of a crime be afforded any defense whatsoever.

Would that solve the problem with riots? If we merely sacrificed a few freedoms in an effort to pacify a passionate, active and entitled segment of society that we know has already suffered hundreds of years of oppression would they stop their aggression and be satisfied?
Click to expand...
The Breonna Taylor killing was totally different from your other examples. A person in the act of committing a crime and who resists arrest or physically assaults a police officer is not an innocent. Try surrendering to police, following police instruction and don't flee or assault police.
The examples of people like Floyd, Brooks, Brown, don't describe innocent people being unfairly harassed by police. They were in the act of a crime and resisted police. What is your answer to how police should deal with that?
 
Integrityrespec said:
The Breonna Taylor killing was totally different from your other examples. A person in the act of committing a crime and who resists arrest or physically assaults a police officer is not an innocent. Try surrendering to police, following police instruction and don't flee or assault police.
The examples of people like Floyd, Brooks, Brown, don't describe innocent people being unfairly harassed by police. They were in the act of a crime and resisted police. What is your answer to how police should deal with that?
Click to expand...


A person committing a crime is by definition not an innocent, regardless of how they handle their interaction with the police. But we do have a rule of law and they are innocent men/women until proved, in a court of law, that they were indeed committing a crime

In addition, even if they were guilty, they still have rights
And a policeman can't act as judge, jury and executioner.
 
Rich2018 said:
A person committing a crime is by definition not an innocent, regardless of how they handle their interaction with the police. But we do have a rule of law and they are innocent men/women until proved, in a court of law, that they were indeed committing a crime
Click to expand...
in a legal sense correct but in a practical sense totally irrelevant.
In addition, even if they were guilty, they still have rights
Click to expand...
Which do not include the right to resist a legal search warrant with deadly force
And a policeman can't act as judge, jury and executioner.
Click to expand...
They did not do that in Taylor’s case, they used reasonable force to arrest Taylor and her boyfriend while they were using deadly force to resist a search warrant.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
in a legal sense correct but in a practical sense totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And that was my point, that their legal status is not proven and is irrelevant to their interaction with police

Which do not include the right to resist a legal search warrant with deadly force
Click to expand...

Irrelevant

The police are governed by rules and laws, regardless of who a suspect acts


They did not do that in Taylor’s case, they used reasonable force to arrest Taylor and her boyfriend while they were using deadly force to resist a search warrant.
Click to expand...

The police did absolutely NOT restrict themselves to "reasonable force", IMO they committed murder and should be arrested and charged.
 
Lutherf said:
As things stand we have a system where the accused are afforded the presumption of innocence, allowed to defend themselves, are allowed to have witnesses on their own behalf and allowed to have an impartial jury.

Based on several recent cases (George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor and others) there is no question but that a whole lot of Americans are unhappy with that system. Should we change the laws and get rid of the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments? Doing so would allow all investigation to be conducted through Twitter videos, blogs and chat rooms. There would be no requirement that accusers entertain counter-evidence and no requirement that one accused of a crime be afforded any defense whatsoever.

Would that solve the problem with riots? If we merely sacrificed a few freedoms in an effort to pacify a passionate, active and entitled segment of society that we know has already suffered hundreds of years of oppression would they stop their aggression and be satisfied?
Click to expand...

So you are advocating for a "trump" style judicial system.
No thanks, I'll stay with what we have. I do think we need to get politics out it it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom