Recommended Posts
dmcoco84 5
QuoteAll in all, I came out of it more acutely attuned to how flawed our system is, but more convinced that it's better than any of the alternatives that have been developed thus far.
Totally agree... as with our Constitution.
dmcoco84 5
QuoteAny system of holding people accountable for crimes will have the potential for abuse. What is your solution to the problem? Would it be better if the government (i.e. "we") did not ever prosecute anyone for anything, just in case the prosecution is tainted in some way?
Well, the solution starts with Principles.
"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 (1935).
I would say the DA in the OP, needs to brush up on his duty.
OHCHUTE 0
Quote[Reply]I am against the death penalty in all cases.
I am against the death penalty in MOST cases. I think it should be reserved for those who kill while imprisoned, in custody, etc. What does one do with a person who kills people while imprisoned? Let them kill others? Kill more? Sentence others to death?
We segregate people to prevent them from killing. If they kill even while segregated, then I think death is appropriate.
But as it stands, capital punishment (which I think should be for the worst of the worst) is being used for far too many...
There was a recent death row inmate that killed two other inmates, in protest that the state of VA was delaying his just punnishment of death. And he treatened even more murders should VA not execute him. Now, if you have to murder more people to finally get the punnishment you deserve, and want to get, is beyond belief.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/17/man-who-killed-2-fellow-inmates-executed-in-virginia-after-uttering-expletive/
ALSO, MARYLAND JUST ABOLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY.
If DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?
GeorgiaDon 340
It's a fundamental aspect of human nature that rules, such as the ones you cited, will come to be ignored if there is no penalty for violating them, or even worse if people are rewarded for violating them.QuoteQuoteAny system of holding people accountable for crimes will have the potential for abuse. What is your solution to the problem? Would it be better if the government (i.e. "we") did not ever prosecute anyone for anything, just in case the prosecution is tainted in some way?
Well, the solution starts with Principles.
"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633 (1935).
I would say the DA in the OP, needs to brush up on his duty.
As a research scientist, I face penalties that start with a ban on receiving funding for my research, and can escalate to criminal prosecution, if I am caught fabricating data. I don't need the penalties to motivate me to be honest, but continued employment, tenure, promotion, and all the other aspects of a successful career depend on maintaining a successful research program. Medical schools typically require their faculty to obtain most or all of their salary from research grants. So when things aren't going well in the lab, and inability to get papers published directly threatens your continued funding and so your ability to support yourself and your family, temptation can certainly rear it's ugly head. However, even the minimum penalty for falsifying data (loss of eligibility to receive research grants) is career ending, so the more prudent course is to work even harder to get things done honestly.
For prosecutors, on the other hand, there seems to be no adverse consequences of any sort attached to even the most egregious violations of the rules. Innocent people can rot in prison for decades, while the prosecutor who concealed evidence that would prove that person's innocence reaps the rewards of a successful career, knowing that even if the truth comes to light they are shielded by prosecutorial immunity.
Why do some face harsh penalties for unethical conduct, while others escape even the most cursory wrist slap? I can only assume it's because it's usually lawyers who get to write the rules.
Don
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Andy9o8 0
QuoteIf DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt
Sometimes it can.
Quoteand why not put them to death?
For the reasons stated in my post #26: because (IMO) it debases society more than it protects it.
Here's a list of the top-20 death penalty countries in terms of numbers of people executed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution
1 China
2 Iran
3 Saudi Arabia
4 Iraq
5 United States
6 Yemen
7 North Korea
8 Somalia
9 Sudan
10 Bangladesh
11 Vietnam
12 South Sudan
13 Taiwan
14 Singapore
15 Palestinian National Authority
16 Afghanistan
17 Belarus
18 Egypt
19 United Arab Emirates
20 Malaysia
21 Syria
The US is #4 on the list. In terms of culture, values, society, government or legal system, I think you'd be damned hard-pressed to find much else the US has in common with the other 19 on the list.
Yep. Prosecutors are immune from malicious prosecution. They are immune from malpractice. The worst they face is bar discipline, but who will complain against them in most cases?
What happens when one can act however one wants without penalty? Exactly what common sense suggests will happen. It's been twenty years in this case of a rogue cop and a prosecutor getting away with it. How many more you think there are? Hundreds? Thousands?
And people wonder why I am so mistrustful of a strong government. Evenn as a lawyer I know when my hands are tied.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Andy9o8 0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/gideons-muted-trumpet.html
QuoteOp-Ed Contributor
Gideon’s Muted Trumpet
By PAUL BUTLER
Published: March 17, 2013 [NY Times]
wmw999 2,178
Wendy P.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteAs a by-the-by, the book, Gideon's Trumpet, about the case that led to the right to counsel, was absolutely fascinating. It's on the list that I keep around because it bears re-reading periodically. Wendy P.
One of the first law-related books I read, I'm pretty sure in high school social studies class. For good or ill, it began a certain effect on me.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteSupports your thesis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/gideons-muted-trumpet.htmlQuoteOp-Ed Contributor
Gideon’s Muted Trumpet
By PAUL BUTLER
Published: March 17, 2013 [NY Times]
Here's more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/the-right-to-counsel-badly-battered-at-50.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
QuoteEditorial | Sunday Observer
The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50
By LINCOLN CAPLAN
Published: March 9, 2013 [NY Times]
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteQuote[Reply]I am against the death penalty in all cases.
I am against the death penalty in MOST cases. I think it should be reserved for those who kill while imprisoned, in custody, etc. What does one do with a person who kills people while imprisoned? Let them kill others? Kill more? Sentence others to death?
We segregate people to prevent them from killing. If they kill even while segregated, then I think death is appropriate.
But as it stands, capital punishment (which I think should be for the worst of the worst) is being used for far too many...
There was a recent death row inmate that killed two other inmates, in protest that the state of VA was delaying his just punnishment of death. And he treatened even more murders should VA not execute him. Now, if you have to murder more people to finally get the punnishment you deserve, and want to get, is beyond belief.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/17/man-who-killed-2-fellow-inmates-executed-in-virginia-after-uttering-expletive/
ALSO, MARYLAND JUST ABOLISHED THE DEATH PENALTY.
If DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?
You always post how the Government is corrupt and that they are never to be trusted, yet you trust them to carry out executions? That's strange logic.
jakee 1,280
QuoteNow, if you have to murder more people to finally get the punnishment you deserve, and want to get, is beyond belief.
I didn't realise that one of the purposes of the justice system was to give convicted criminals what they want.
rifleman 61
It's a very good discussion on the subject of capital punishment from the viewpoint of an official executioner (btw the book is much better than the film)
NWFlyer 2
Quote
If DNA can be used to determine innocence, why can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?
It's not always perfectly cut and dried. For example, there was DNA evidence that was submitted as part of the evidence in the case for which I was a juror.
Had the DNA evidence been the only piece of evidence in this case, I doubt the jury would have convicted. It wasn't strong enough on its own, but combined with all the other evidence provided by the prosecution, we believed there was enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
So it's not as simple as saying "DNA evidence = death penalty eligible, no DNA evidence = no death penalty."
ryoder 1,412
Here is the summary: The *only* forensic "science" that is actually based on real science is DNA testing.
jakee 1,280
Quotewhy can't DNA evidence be used to determine guilt and why not put them to death?
Because CSI isn't real life and DNA evidence is not perfect.
wmw999 2,178
I read once that a single episode of CSI costs more than the entire Las Vegas crime lab's annual budget
Wendy P.
oldwomanc6 38
QuoteOn the topic of evidence, everyone should see this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/
Here is the summary: The *only* forensic "science" that is actually based on real science is DNA testing.
That was definitely an eye-opener.
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9
Solitary confinement, of course.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites