Who should our Govt be arresting?

[CalGun]

Just curious who our government is spending resources on bringing to justice?

 

[Phys251]

Who is Stevens Killers?

 

[Cephus]

Zimmerman has already had his day in court, they cannot go after him again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

 

[Rainman05]

Just curious who our government is spending resources on bringing to justice?

It should be arresting you for making stupid polls. 2 choices, both wrong and silly. At least put in a "mashed potatoes" or whatever option.

Now in all honesty: it should be arresting only those who have been found guilty in a court of law.

 

[MaggieD]

It should be arresting you for making stupid polls. 2 choices, both wrong and silly. At least put in a "mashed potatoes" or whatever option.

Now in all honesty: it should be arresting only those who have been found guilty in a court of law.

I love you Rainman, or I would be telling you how wrong you are.

 

[radcen]

Zimmerman has already had his day in court, they cannot go after him again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. "They"... intentionally used loosely... can indeed continue to go after him. The Martin family can, and probably will, sue in civil court. The feds might go after him for civil rights violations.

I personally believe that both of these scenarios involve double jeopardy, but courts have ruled that they do not, and my opinion carries no weight in our legal system.

 

[radcen]

Now in all honesty: it should be arresting only those who have been found guilty in a court of law.

Don't people usually get arrested before they go to court, not after?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. "They"... intentionally used loosely... can indeed continue to go after him. The Martin family can, and probably will, sue in civil court. The feds might go after him for civil rights violations.

I personally believe that both of these scenarios involve double jeopardy, but courts have ruled that they do not, and my opinion carries no weight in our legal system.

They are not considered "double jeopardy" because:

Civil courts assess financial liability for damages, they do not impose criminal penalties. A civil suit for "wrongful death" is a monetary claim for civil losses either compensatory and/or punitive. Compensatory in this case would include pain and suffering endured by the surviving family members due to their loved one's absence and perhaps burial costs. In those states that allow punitive damages, such damages are intended to punish the person who caused the wrongful death and discourage similar behavior.

A Federal civil rights case is based upon alleged violations of a victims civil rghts. While murder may be the source, the criminal charge is NOT "murder" but rather that the person who was killed was deprived of a fair evalution regarding his right to life under color of the law. Therefore the person who caused the death was not properly held accountable for this civil rights violation. (see 18 U.S.C. 242)

However, struggle as they might, those who wish to see Zimmerman face a trial under 18 U.S.C. 242 are facing an uphill battle. It seems fairly clear that the trial followed proper due process and the jury determination was both honest and fair under the law.

 

[specklebang]

I'd like to see them investigate every one of our politicians and arrest any of them who are targeting money toward their friends, family or contributors. In China, that would be a death penalty crime but in America, they'll just probably lose their position and get a job as a lobbyist for a mil a year. But it sure would be interesting to see who, if any, are left standing.

 

[CalGun]

Wow there is some rocket science for ya; arresting people found guilty in a court of law? Hmm in my experience most of those people guilty in a court of law are already under arrest - so I'll give you a phat failure for a lame effort.

It should be arresting you for making stupid polls. 2 choices, both wrong and silly. At least put in a "mashed potatoes" or whatever option.

Now in all honesty: it should be arresting only those who have been found guilty in a court of law.

 

[radcen]

They are not considered "double jeopardy" because:

Civil courts assess financial liability for damages, they do not impose criminal penalties. A civil suit for "wrongful death" is a monetary claim for civil losses either compensatory and/or punitive. Compensatory in this case would include pain and suffering endured by the surviving family members due to their loved one's absence and perhaps burial costs. In those states that allow punitive damages, such damages are intended to punish the person who caused the wrongful death and discourage similar behavior.

A Federal civil rights case is based upon alleged violations of a victims civil rghts. While murder may be the source, the criminal charge is NOT "murder" but rather that the person who was killed was deprived of a fair evalution regarding his right to life under color of the law. Therefore the person who caused the death was not properly held accountable for this civil rights violation. (see 18 U.S.C. 242)

I know the reasons. Just rationalizing, IMO. We're taking one crime... the same crime... and re-categorizing it multiple times to our liking. That is consciously skirting the purpose of double-jeopardy.

 

[Cephus]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. "They"... intentionally used loosely... can indeed continue to go after him. The Martin family can, and probably will, sue in civil court. The feds might go after him for civil rights violations.

I personally believe that both of these scenarios involve double jeopardy, but courts have ruled that they do not, and my opinion carries no weight in our legal system.

Neither does the Constitution most of the time.

 

[Master PO]

when did the constitution, apply to the people?

 

[Captain Adverse]

I know the reasons. Just rationalizing, IMO. We're taking one crime... the same crime... and re-categorizing it multiple times to our liking. That is consciously skirting the purpose of double-jeopardy.

Well, if there were no real differences between criminal acts and civil liabilities then we would not have criminal and civil courts. We would only have "criminal" courts because everything would be a crime worthy of restrictions on your liberty rights.

However, regarding Federal civil rights cases, I admit that I find them suspect in any case where a Not Guilty decision has actually been rendered. By this I mean that I think they have validity in cases when either a State fails to prosecute, or a trial ends in a hung jury and a State decides not to try again. This is why the Federal laws were originally passed, due to examples where evidence clearly showed a crime but police failed to arrest, States failed to prosecute, or jury's failed to reach a final decision. I DON"T think it should be used when a jury HAS rendered a decision by a finding of Not Guilty. That's why I stated in my prior post that I didn't think the DOJ would end up filing a case against Zimmerman, despite all the "sound and fury."

 

[radcen]

Well, if there were no real differences between criminal acts and civil liabilities then we would not have criminal and civil courts. We would only have "criminal" courts because everything would be a crime worthy of restrictions on your liberty rights.

However, regarding Federal civil rights cases, I admit that I find them suspect in any case where a Not Guilty decision has actually been rendered. By this I mean that I think they have validity in cases when either a State fails to prosecute, or a trial ends in a hung jury and a State decides not to try again. This is why the Federal laws were originally passed, due to examples where evidence clearly showed a crime but police failed to arrest, States failed to prosecute, or jury's failed to reach a final decision. I DON"T think it should be used when a jury HAS rendered a decision by a finding of Not Guilty. That's why I stated in my prior post that I didn't think the DOJ would end up filing a case against Zimmerman, despite all the "sound and fury."

re: criminal vs civil
I wouldn't suggest only having one or the other, but rather choosing one or the other.

re: civil rights violations
What you said echoes my sentiments closely, only I couldn't think of a good way to articulate it. You did well.

I don't mind so much that there are different categories*, just... pick one.

*- I do mind special "hate crime" penalties, but that's a different issue for another thread.

 

[Captain Adverse]

re: criminal vs civil
I wouldn't suggest only having one or the other, but rather choosing one or the other.

I disagree. A person can be found "not guilty" of a crime involving the death of someone because there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction even though harm has occurred. As we all know, the burden at the criminal level is very high; proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases have a lesser burden of proof; prepondernace of the evidence. Even if the criiminal act could not be proved, if there was actual financial harm that might be attributed to the defendant's actions then he should also face a determination as to whether or not he can be held financially responsible.

re: civil rights violations
What you said echoes my sentiments closely, only I couldn't think of a good way to articulate it. You did well.

Aww shucks, it weren't nothin... :mrgreen: lol Thanks.

 

[radcen]

I disagree. A person can be found "not guilty" of a crime involving the death of someone because there was insufficient evidence to support a criminal conviction even though harm has occurred. As we all know, the burden at the criminal level is very high; proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil cases have a lesser burden of proof; prepondernace of the evidence. Even if the criiminal act could not be proved, if there was actual financial harm that might be attributed to the defendant's actions then he should also face a determination as to whether or not he can be held financially responsible.

To me the level of burden of proof required for each is completely and totally irrelevant. You're still subjecting the accused to more than one trial for a single offense. Now, courts keep allowing expansions into additional areas, and the accused are faced with a never-ending series of defenses. Kind of a "if we can't get them for this, we'll get them for that" mindset. The spirit of the prohibition against double-jeopardy is supposed to guard against that.

As far as criminal vs civil goes, it would ease my concerns a bit if we allowed literal innocence to be a valid verdict. As it stands now, you're either guilty or not guilty, which essentially means "it was proven" or "it couldn't be proven (but sill happened... *wink wink, nod nod*)". If we had "innocent" as an option, which would then bar ANY future trials or accusations, including civil, then I would be more willing to accept double-jeopardy... though I probably still wouldn't like it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

To me the level of burden of proof required for each is completely and totally irrelevant. You're still subjecting the accused to more than one trial for a single offense. Now, courts keep allowing expansions into additional areas, and the accused are faced with a never-ending series of defenses. Kind of a "if we can't get them for this, we'll get them for that" mindset. The spirit of the prohibition against double-jeopardy is supposed to guard against that.

It is relevant. Otherwise we would have to allow a criminal court to determine not only criminal guilt, but also civil liability for his actions. We hold civil liability to a lesser standard because the "punishment" is only financial, and is limited (despite jury awards) to what a defendant can actually pay.

As far as criminal vs civil goes, it would ease my concerns a bit if we allowed literal innocence to be a valid verdict. As it stands now, you're either guilty or not guilty, which essentially means "it was proven" or "it couldn't be proven (but sill happened... *wink wink, nod nod*)". If we had "innocent" as an option, which would then bar ANY future trials or accusations, including civil, then I would be more willing to accept double-jeopardy... though I probably still wouldn't like it.

We can't state categorically that a person is absolutely innocent, because in that case there would be no need for a trial, it would be self-evident from an examination of the incident. A trial is required when there is evidence that the Defendant may have been the perpetrator and then (perhaps) the question arises whether his actions had a valid excusable reason. This is why the burden of proof is so high; he is on trial because the State beleives it has enough evidence to show he was responsible and had no excusable reason. We can only deteremine if that is correct or not, not that he is actually completely innocent.

However, as you may have seen in all of my posts on this subject, I personally extend the presumption of innocence after a not guilty verdict. I will maintain that until either new evidence comes to light (which changes nothing due to double-jeopardy) or the defendant admits his actual guilt later. At that point I will consider him a guilty, but lucky, SOB.

 

[radcen]

It is relevant. Otherwise we would have to allow a criminal court to determine not only criminal guilt, but also civil liability for his actions. We hold civil liability to a lesser standard because the "punishment" is only financial, and is limited (despite jury awards) to what a defendant can actually pay.

We'd still be trying them multiple times for the same crime. No way around that.

Financial punishment isn't an "only" proposition, either. Simply hiring lawyers is enough to punish someone and drive them to the proverbial poor house... which is a reason in and of itself that I have seen some use as justification for civil trials after acquittal.

We can't state categorically that a person is absolutely innocent, because in that case there would be no need for a trial, it would be self-evident from an examination of the incident. A trial is required when there is evidence that the Defendant may have been the perpetrator and then (perhaps) the question arises whether his actions had a valid excusable reason. This is why the burden of proof is so high; he is on trial because the State beleives it has enough evidence to show he was responsible and had no excusable reason. We can only deteremine if that is correct or not, not that he is actually completely innocent.

However, as you may have seen in all of my posts on this subject, I personally extend the presumption of innocence after a not guilty verdict. I will maintain that until either new evidence comes to light (which changes nothing due to double-jeopardy) or the defendant admits his actual guilt later. At that point I will consider him a guilty, but lucky, SOB.

The trial... either jury, or judge in a bench trial... would render a verdict of innocent. There are indeed innocent people who are convicted then later exonerated. I see no reason why a jury or judge cannot see factual innocence and render such a verdict. Essentially saying, "Yes, the prosecution presented guilt, and we simply don't buy it. Period." And they might be correct.

 

[Captain Adverse]

We'd still be trying them multiple times for the same crime. No way around that.

Only to the extent of my right to recover finanacial losses due to his action. If you cause finanacial harm, criminal courts won't deal that with unless it is the root crime itself (theft, burglary, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) and then only via liberty penalties (although some states have added restitution penalties).

The trial... either jury, or judge in a bench trial... would render a verdict of innocent. There are indeed innocent people who are convicted then later exonerated. I see no reason why a jury or judge cannot see factual innocence and render such a verdict. Essentially saying, "Yes, the prosecution presented guilt, and we simply don't buy it. Period." And they might be correct.

You can't see because you simply refuse to. The presumption of innocence is stressed simply to insure that the jurors are forced to start from that position, rather than the typical one of "he must have done something wrong or he wouldn't be here." Unless there is incontrovertible evidence of innocence (in which case there would never have been a trial at all) there is really no way to be certain a person is innocent simply based on evidence presented. All one can do is presume it and make the State show enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Therefore, you may be willing to continue to presume innocence but that does not actually make it true. He could be guilty as hell, just lucky there wasn't enough evidence to show it.

As for innocent people convicted? Yes it happens, and probably a lot more frequently then people believe. But we have an appellate system for that contingency which is free to examine any new information that arises. In the case of a "not guilty" verdict, we are prevented from retrial by the principle of doube jeopardy.

 

[earthworm]

We have no idea how many recources are being used to bring the murderers of Ambassador Stevens to justice....I believe that this process is "sub-rosa" .
Zimmerman/Martin - a totally different thing....
So, yes - this is a lousy poll - no vote from me, as usual..

 

[windowdressing]

Zimmerman has already had his day in court, they cannot go after him again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron.

there's the chance of a civil rights trial, and I'm guessing he'll get arrested for something else down the road ...

 

[windowdressing]

Well, if there were no real differences between criminal acts and civil liabilities then we would not have criminal and civil courts. We would only have "criminal" courts because everything would be a crime worthy of restrictions on your liberty rights.

However, regarding Federal civil rights cases, I admit that I find them suspect in any case where a Not Guilty decision has actually been rendered. By this I mean that I think they have validity in cases when either a State fails to prosecute, or a trial ends in a hung jury and a State decides not to try again. This is why the Federal laws were originally passed, due to examples where evidence clearly showed a crime but police failed to arrest, States failed to prosecute, or jury's failed to reach a final decision. I DON"T think it should be used when a jury HAS rendered a decision by a finding of Not Guilty. That's why I stated in my prior post that I didn't think the DOJ would end up filing a case against Zimmerman, despite all the "sound and fury."

Rodney King? Could happen again ...

 

[Captain Adverse]

Rodney King? Could happen again ...

Gee, lets see? Rodney King issue had video evidence showing exactly what happened. President George Bush Sr. said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids.

When the President states he is unhappy, the DOJ responds.

Anything different in this case? No video evidence. Not even an eye-witness to the start of confrontation. President Obama also states "The jury has spoken." We even have a juror who indicates the first vote was 3 for conviction and 3 for acquittal. Apparently after discussion the three who were originally for conviction became convinced that the state had not met it's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

By the way, that's exactly how fair trials are supposed to work.

 

[windowdressing]

Gee, lets see? Rodney King issue had video evidence showing exactly what happened. President George Bush Sr. said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids.

When the President states he is unhappy, the DOJ responds.

Anything different in this case? No video evidence. Not even an eye-witness to the start of confrontation. President Obama also states "The jury has spoken." We even have a juror who indicates the first vote was 3 for conviction and 3 for acquittal. Apparently after discussion the three who were originally for conviction became convinced that the state had not met it's burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt."

By the way, that's exactly how fair trials are supposed to work.

no disagreement on most of what you wrote ...I was responding to your post when you wrote that if someone is found not guilty the DOJ should leave them alone ... the cops were found not guilty ... that's all ... anyway, still could happen in this case ... you and I don't have all of the evidence to make the decision ... remember, the criminal and civil trials are not the same thing, and even the burden of proof is substantially different ... I'll wait, but, as I've said before, I don't think they'll do it, but they may drag it out to appease some folks and make GZ sweat a bit ...