• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

What kind of Justice System would you rather have?

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
22,716
Reaction score
12,751
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or -

Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?


If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,374
Reaction score
27,502
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or -

Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?


If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
I guess I'd have to go with our founding fathers on this one. Much better for someone who's guilty to go free than to lock an innocent man in a cage.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,478
Reaction score
37,750
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or -

Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?


If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
I prefer the former, yet would also drastically change the sentencing criteria. I would use that individual's past convictions and future likelyhood (satistically based on recidivism rates for similar crimes) crime to establish the sentence. We now also use as mitgating factors, that which should be used as aggravating factors, e.g. drug/alcohol use, when determining sentences.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,374
Reaction score
27,502
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I prefer the former, yet would also drastically change the sentencing criteria. I would use that individual's past convictions and future likelyhood (satistically based on recidivism rates for similar crimes) crime to establish the sentence. We now also use as mitgating factors, that which should be used as aggravating factors, e.g. drug/alcohol use, when determining sentences.
I definitely don't think drugs should be mitigating factors, but I also don't think they should be aggravating factors either. In reality, it should play absolutely zero role in sentencing. You are responsible for your actions, no matter what the situation. If you decide to do drugs or drink, control yourself and be responsible.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,478
Reaction score
37,750
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I definitely don't think drugs should be mitigating factors, but I also don't think they should be aggravating factors either. In reality, it should play absolutely zero role in sentencing. You are responsible for your actions, no matter what the situation. If you decide to do drugs or drink, control yourself and be responsible.
So DWI/DUI are OK so long as no "accident" results?
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,478
Reaction score
37,750
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A DWI is the crime, it is not a factor in an unrelated crime.

IE: It shouldn't matter in sentencing for a murder trial whether the offender was drunk or not.
I disagree. Lower inihibitions (resulting from substance abuse), for someone already showing a lack of control, makes a repeat of criminal activity much more likely thus should result in a longer sentence. The idea, mine at any rate, is to keep society protected for as long as possible from a criminal prone to prey on them. The more likely that a criminal is to repeat a crime, and the more serious that crime was, then the longer that they should be locked away. Anyone with three felony convictions should never be released, IMHO.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Any system will have innocents wrongfully convicted and guilty walk free.

What is unfortunate is that people see the courts as the beginning or end of Justice, when it should be neither. Just a tool.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,453
Reaction score
20,317
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or - Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?

If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
I am going to go with A: a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free? So what do I win????

I prefer the former, yet would also drastically change the sentencing criteria. I would use that individual's past convictions and future likelyhood (satistically based on recidivism rates for similar crimes) crime to establish the sentence. We now also use as mitgating factors, that which should be used as aggravating factors, e.g. drug/alcohol use, when determining sentences.
I can agree as long as sentencing is up to the Judge in all cases. I do not like mandatory minimums and two or three strike laws. They are too draconian and do not allow for individual circumstances arising in each case.

I definitely don't think drugs should be mitigating factors, but I also don't think they should be aggravating factors either. In reality, it should play absolutely zero role in sentencing. You are responsible for your actions, no matter what the situation. If you decide to do drugs or drink, control yourself and be responsible.
I don't agree. I think drug use should be legalized (or at least decriminalized), allowing for usage under the same conditions as alcohol. However, just like choosing to pick up a gun to aid in a robbery as opposed to using one is a choice that creates aggravating circumstances...choosing to do drugs and then commit a crime does not lessen ones culpability. In fact, it enhances the danger that you will cause harm because you have intentionally disabled your ability to reason or respond.
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Where does the JURY play a role here?

The jury plays a major role. It is the conscience of the community, and its goal is that justice be done.

The Zimmerman jury failed miserably in that role.

Yes, better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned or executed, and one of those guilty men was acquitted. A dark day for justice.
 

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or -

Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?


If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
You forgot the system we have now. THe one that subjects you to a trial due to you being "white" or a "white-hispanic" regardless of evidence.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or -

Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?

If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?

The principle is much older than Blackstone's formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. An early example of the principle appears in the Bible (Genesis 18:23-32),[1][2] as:

Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?[3] ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."[4]

The 12th-century legal theorist Maimonides, expounding on this passage as well as Exodus 23:7 ("the innocent and righteous slay thou not") argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[1][5][6]

Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally."

Similarly, on 3 October 1692, while decrying the Salem witch trials, Increase Mather adapted Fortescue's statement and wrote, "It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that one Innocent Person should be Condemned."[7]

Blackstone's Commentaries[edit]

While compiling his highly influential set of books on English common law, William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio this way:

“ All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.[8] ”

This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century.[9] It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.[10]

See:
Blackstone's formulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I subscribe to this ideal.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
22,716
Reaction score
12,751
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
You forgot the system we have now. THe one that subjects you to a trial due to you being "white" or a "white-hispanic" regardless of evidence.
I do not have a problem with the idea that any time a human being is shot dead in the USofA a trial is warranted?

A trial was definitely warranted for Zimmerman, what was not needed/necessary or warranted was the media hype and racial aspects of the case to over-take the entire country.
That's where things fell apart.
 

Rainman05

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
10,032
Reaction score
4,964
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Better to free 10 guilty than to lock up 1 innocent.

Either we, western society, promotes a society of conscience and justice or we are nothing.
 

Morrigi

Active member
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
351
Reaction score
124
Location
IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Better to free 10 guilty than to lock up 1 innocent.

Either we, western society, promotes a society of conscience and justice or we are nothing.
Amen to that.
 

Oceandan

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,482
Reaction score
699
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do not have a problem with the idea that any time a human being is shot dead in the USofA a trial is warranted?

A trial was definitely warranted for Zimmerman, what was not needed/necessary or warranted was the media hype and racial aspects of the case to over-take the entire country.
That's where things fell apart.
The idea there needs to be a trial whenever someone is shot dead, is beyond silly. In fact it's unconstitutional.
 

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
22,716
Reaction score
12,751
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
How do you get that it's unconstitutional?

The shooting death of a human being is about as severe a situation as can happen.

Taking time to look at the situation seems appropriate no matter what the circumstance.

Media circus trials are not what I'm talking about here though.

When it's two people, and one ends up dead - why isn't a trial warranted in that situation?
 

Thoreau72

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Justice was denied by the jury, and thus they are enablers of a gross injustice. Not the first time, and not the last time, but a pathetic performance by the women.
 

Torrent

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2013
Messages
61
Reaction score
33
Location
Just outside of the Middle of Nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Would you rather have a system that allows "a potentially" guilty person to go free?

Or -

Would you rather have a system that sends "a potentially" innocent person to jail?


If your chosen system is going to err on one side or the other, which would you prefer?
I think I would go with System that assumes all people are innocent. But I don't think we have that anymore with the large number of laws on the books is next to impossable for anyone to not be breaking some law on Local/City/State/Fed/International level.

So we are all guilty of something. (not washing recycleables, letting dog bark late at night, grass to tall, trees not kept in CODE, etc)
Its just a matter of will someone enforce that law now, later, or never.
 
Top Bottom