I see what you're saying. I'll probably be doing criminal defense (private) among other things very soon, so your opinion is interesting to me.

For now, let's throw out the insanity defense as I'll bet I could probably show you some cases where such a defense is viable and morally supportable.

Other than that, what would you change?

My law school friend I were talking about this earlier, she was showing me a few real life cases in one of her many books she studies. Everything she tried blasting me with I found something that was flawed. I know you know more than I do as does she, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who can handle an hour of law school, but I told her that there wouldn't be so much to study and know if a lot of the pointless garbage was taken out.

I would change alot of things. I would start with how members of the jury are selected. I find it to be a bit strange when a country who is supposed to have a decent justice system, can pick and choose who should be on the jury and who shouldn't based on an interview process. I also would get rid of death row. There are some criminals on death row who clearly have done the crime and will actually die of natural death rather than receiving what they gave to someone else. My way would be: Once they're found guilty and the death penalty is applied to them, DO IT. THAT DAY! The end.

I'm still blown away knowing the fact that someone can break into my home that I'm paying for, where I eat, sleep and live, and yet if I shoot him as he's fleeing, I go to prison? WTF!!! I know you're an attorney or headed in that direction, but dude, seriously. On top of that, if he's injured in my place of residence, he can sue me??? If that isn't fking insane, then I don't know what is. Excuse my langauge but I call total bullshit on that whole stupid rule. If someone is breaking and entering in my home, he should be open game. He's on my property, so I should be able to do whatever tf I want to, to him without going to prison. What if I have a family? I can't protect my wife and kids??

Like I was saying. The criminal is WAY too protected in this country. What about the drunk drivers? Don't get me wrong, I'm all about drinking, but there's a time and place for that, and also I have to be willing to except the consequences if I've had too much to drink. The bar shouldn't be responsible for my actions.

Question for you. She and I got into a debate about that issue. She told me that if someone had too much to drink, it's actually the bar's responsibilty to stop serving him. How is that? Once again, the prick is protected. If he's had too much to drink and hurts someone, throw him behind bars. Not for just a few days, but 20 to life. Our crime rate would drop tremendously if we just made these few changes. It's bad, because people know if they hire the right attorney they can either get off, or get a smaller sentence. Like I said, I know you know more than me, but you've got to admit it yourself dude, some things have got to change. Seriously. You've got car jackings, theft, insurance fraud, etc, all of these things would change if we had a harsher justice system. Basically it needs to be designed to protect and serve the innocent, not the guiltly. I agree with Ksig 100% on that whole innocent until proven guilty mumbo jumbo.

When you say private, you mean not for an actual law firm? What's the difference between private and actually working for a law firm?

I agree that if someone breaks into your home, they shouldn't be able to sue you. That's ridiculous.

In terms of the bar being responsible... this is true. I've worked in many restaurants, and we would hold the same responsibility. You're trained in how to deal with someone when you're serving them alcohol. This is why some people will get cut off in bars. If someone attempts to leave, they're clearly drunk, and they don't have a DD, then yes, you're supposed to stop them (ask for their keys, offer to call them a cab, tell them to call a friend to pick them up, etc.) The same would be true if you had a party at your house, one of your friends was wasted, and they were allowed to walk out the door and drive home.

As to everything else.. you say that the system is flawed. But I guarantee that every other system is flawed, more so than ours ever will be.

You talk about getting rid of insanity pleas. This will never happen. As long as a few people could actually be deemed mentally insane (which is obviously the case), then this won't go away. No matter how much this plea is abused.

You say that you'd change how members of the jury are selected. What exactly would you change? You implied that there is an interview process.. It's not like you're applying for a job, and you have better "qualifications" than someone else. Possible jury members are selected at random, and from those, it is narrowed down by getting rid of people who are biased or hold a prejudice. If a white person is a potential juror in a case where the defendant is black, and they are known to not like black people at all, why is it so bad to get rid of them? I'm confused by your logic here.

In terms of the death penalty... I don't care if they sit in jail for 10 years before they're killed. To me, death is an easy way out. I say leave them in jail for life. It'll be more torturous.

And in terms of rights for criminals... again, it comes down to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Hell, I know that if I was arrested for a crime I didn't commit, I'd be a little pissed when someone says to me, "By the way, your trial is going to last 2 minutes, you're clearly guilty, and we're going to kill you tomorrow."

People should know if they're too drunk to drive. I've had too much to drink on several occasions, but I know I was not able to drive, so I caught a cab. I see your point to an extent here, but for those who are not responsible enough to drink, maybe they don't need to be drinking at all, and if they do kill someone in an auto accident, give them a harsher penatly by giving them life in prison. Either that or the death penalty. It would change then.

All justice systems are flawed, but I don't believe ours is any better than theirs, because ours is based on money and status. I'd bet we probably have more people in prison in this country than any other country, and a lot of the retards we have in prison are just dead weight, taking up space. Get rid of em'.

I agree, the insanity way out will never change and neither will the other rules that are in place. Still doesn't make it right. Personally, if someone really is insane, if they did the crime they still should have to pay just like the next person.

Weeding out someone because he may be racist or biased is a cop out. We're all biased, including you, so what's your point? If the selection process is based on someone being racist or biased then they might as well cut everyone. We all have race and biased issues. It's still a pointless process to me.

No way, get rid of those who get rid of other innocent people who have done nothing to them. They're a waste of tax dollars. I think it cost something like $50,000/year to take care of an inmate. I could be wrong, but I remember reading something like that. I could care less about the suffering, just get rid of them. It's almost like cleaning up sht. You wouldn't keep dog sht laying around the house all day would you? You would get rid of it. Correct? Same thing should apply to the inmates on death row. Get rid of em'.

Just a note...I was being sarcastic about the "innocent until proven guilty" thing. I firmly believe in the doctrine, and I think too many people ignore it.

That said - when someone pleads insanity, it's not like they get to walk right out the door and re-enter society. They get treatment for what is most likely a serious mental defect. It's not always like in "Law and Order" where they're throwing it out as a last-ditch defense or some sort of bargaining tactic. Some of these people have serious mental issues, and honestly don't know the difference between right and wrong.


On the drunk driving and the bar being responsible for your actions...that's not the case in every state. Some states have statutes that protect bars from liability if someone they are serving goes out and injures another person; the rationale is that the bar/tavern shouldn't be responsible in a civil or criminal sense for every person that they serve. There are a number of states that agree with your rationale, but a bunch don't; it really just depends where you are.

I know it looks like the criminal is protected to the detriment of the innocent person, but I think there's another way to look at it. Not every person who is accused of a crime is guilty, and not every crime is as serious as it appears at first glance. The laws are set up (or, the aim is that the laws are set up) so that, in those cases when someone is actually innocent, or that the crime wasn't as serious as first thought, the person has a fair shot of re-entry to society. Now, it doesn't work out that way in a lot of cases; innocent people are put on death row or spend years in prison, and guilty people walk the streets.

On the death row issue; check out this website: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ . There's also lots of resources on the web that talk about innocent people who have spent decades in jail, or who have been put to death. There are also first-hand accounts from those innocent people who spent 10, 20, 30 years or more in prison. Having executions the same day as guilty verdicts would virtually ensure that more innocent people were put to death.

I'm just a law student, not yet a lawyer, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt...it's just my views on the whole thing.

Law practice can be broken down, for the most part, into private practice and public service. When Kevin says he's going "private," he means that he'll do criminal defense for a law firm, rather than being a public defender.

Another reason that I would not do away with death row right now... forensics. Even DNA testing for criminal trials only started being used in the 1980s, and there have been MAJOR advancements in this area recently. There are still cases where judgments are being overturned for people who have been sitting in jail for years, because at the time of their trial, such forensic tests weren't yet available. This is still a very new area of research, and I don't think we should start killing everyone just yet.

Truth. My husband worked with the Innocence Institute while he was in college (as a journalist). He worked on a team that ended up clearing a man of murder. There were gross errors in the casework when the original trial happened, and one witness came right out and admitted he had lied on the stand. By the time the innocence institute took his case, did the research, and filed the appeal, he had spent something like 10+ years in jail. Lost his wife and family, his home, his livelihood.....and he was innocent.

That is why a same day execution is a BAD BAD idea.

Exactly; as I've read more and more about the subject, I've actually changed my thoughs on capital punishment, and I'm now anti-death penalty.

Look, at least with respect to one crime (drunk driving), I can understand the wish for some eye for an eye retribution. My wife and I were seriously injured and almost killed by a drunk driver who was driving without a license. I get that, when something happens to you, you can feel differently about the criminal justice system.

At the end of the day, though, using revenge as a factor in criminal justice would create too many problems.

The law can be broken down into some fairly simple concepts. There's broad overarching policy, then there's the minutia. Basically, at least in response to some of the situations you've described, I see two overarching principles: 1) Everyone has to act within the parameters of reasonable care, always; 2) You can only harm someone when necessary, and when it's necessary, you can only use the amount of force which is reasonably calculated to stop them from harming you.

Maybe these things won't seem so bad if you understand the logic behind them.

With respect to the bar, the bartender knows or should know when someone has been served too much to be driving. We require those bartenders to not intentionally, by action or inaction, put drunk drivers on the road. To do so is to create an unreasonable risk of harm or death to the public at large, not to mention the drunk. In one of these cases, the drunk is not 'protected.' He gets sued also. It's just that in this society, we like to make injured people whole as priority one. We let the insurance company of the drunk and the insurance company of the bar/bartender fight amongst themselves to decide who pays what.

With regard to the second thing, you have a fleeing burglar. While you might feel violated, society does not condone you taking a life because you have suffered some feeling of harmed security and maybe lost some property. We think lives, even those of criminals are worth more than stuff and hurt feelings. If, however, that burglar is in your home, generally speaking (DO NOT ACT ON WHAT I AM SAYING HERE!!! KNOW YOUR OWN STATE LAW BECAUSE I DON'T!!!), you can use whatever force is reasonable in getting them off of your property or abating the risk they pose.

As for juries, most countries don't use juries. We do. Look at what just happened over in Pennsylvania where a couple of judges were caught taking payments from private prisons for sending youthful offenders their way. The jury system keeps that sort of corruption from infiltrating our criminal justice system for the most part. There are lots of other reasons for and against juries, but as to the jury selection, a/k/a voire dire, both sides want to have a fair and unbiased jury. It's important to know whether any jurors have certain biases which could either result in a mistrial or someone being wrongfully acquitted/convicted. Maybe that's flawed also, but I can't think of a better system really.

In sum, if you have a problem with the law, it's best to take a step back and examine the underlying broad principles. I think those'll help you make better sense of what at first seems unfair.

Working for a law firm is private. Working for the state isn't. I don't want to get into what exactly my plans are (you could probably search through my old posts if you care), but I'm not going to be working for the government.

To Kevin and Ksig, you both made valid points, but think about what you're saying here. I understand you two are becoming attorneys and all, and it's obvious you know a whole hell of a lot more than I do about the law, but let's put you in the innocent person's shoes. Not saying that this will happen to either of you or your families because I hope it doesn't. But let's say you lost a loved one due to some idiot who can't control his liquor. Wouldn't you want him to fry for that? Or what if it was 2am and some asshole broke into your home, and as he was taking your things, you chased him out with a gun (not shooting him to avoid getting prosecuted yourself) he comes back, because you didn't blow him away, and he kills a loved one. I don't care what society says about the value of human life. If he's a criminal and he's in my house, taking my things, or making my family feel unsafe, I should be able to blow his fking brains out without being prosecuted. If the United States passed laws that looked at the criminals as the pos that they are, then the crime rate would drop tremendously. I'm all for the jury law, but I'm not for the selection process. I agree, it's very flawed because I think it's unfair to select who gets put on the jury and who doesn't. We all have racist and biased reactions to people. Anyone who tells you they don't they're full of sht. And for the sick people who murder innocent people and then plead insanity, just get rid of them. If they really are sick, why should they get treatment, but then the innocent victims still have to suffer the loss. Forever. Fk em. Get rid of em.

Actually, I can answer this from personal experience. My wife and I were almost killed by a drunk driver two years ago. It was his third DUI; he was so intoxicated that he fell asleep at the wheel after the collision. Mind you, he crossed over the center line and hit us head-on, and his estimated rate of speed was 70 mph; so, that gives you an idea of how drunk he was at the time. My wife and I are lucky to be alive today.

So, with that said, it hasn't changed my views on these legal issues.

I could go on for pages about this topic, but I'll keep it short...

You're taking a very specific situation (someone breaking into your house), and asking that the entire criminal law be re-written to answer that concern. I understand the emotional response, but you really need to look at it big picture.

As to those who plead insanity - again, it's not sane people pleading it as some sort of bargaining chip. If you're that interested and passionate about the topic, it may be worth it for you to do some research into the area, and read stories of people who were actually mentally ill when they have committed serious crimes. When these people go into treatment, it's not like they're going to the Hilton. Additionally, they're still being taken out of society, so it's not like they automatically get to walk the streets free and clear.

I mean . . . you really have to look at both sides here.

Agreed.

I was in a car accident involving a drunk driver. My friend and I were hit from behind when this drunk a-hole ran a red light and hit us after we made a right turn. He was stumbling as he got out of the car, and he fled the scene, leaving his sister in the car. We later found out that he was on probation, and he was actually driving his sister's car.

I don't know what you mean, Zyphyrus, when you say, "Wouldn't you want him to fry for that?" but I would not want him to get the death penalty. I do believe, however, that he should definitely do jail time, which he is.

Another thing to remember is that people make mistakes. Sometimes out of stupidity, sometimes it's a one time thing and they learn their lesson, sometimes they just don't know any better. Let's take the whole breaking and entering example... let's suppose people break into your house. You hear noise from your bedroom, you get up, grab your gun, and you head downstairs. It's dark, but you see two men in your kitchen going through your purse. They notice you and they start to run out the back door. As they're running across your lawn, you shoot and kill them both.

You call the police. They arrive. They go through the pockets of the two guys lying on the ground outside and they find their wallets with their IDs. They were both 16. The parents of the two young boys show up and are devastated.

Would you not feel the least bit guilty?

You said a few posts back that you'd be surprised that you would go to jail if you shot at burglars as they were leaving your house. In the example you gave in your last post, you said something to the effect of, " What if you don't shoot him as he's leaving and he comes back and kills a loved one?" Well guess what, that sucks. But you can't preemptively kill someone because you have a hunch that they might come back and kill your family. What kind of a defense would that be?

"Well, you see your honor, he was stealing some of my money, so I shot him."
"Wasn't he leaving your house?"
"Yes, he was running away. But instead of calling the police, I decided to shoot him on the off chance that he might come back and kill my spouse."

YOU LEFT-WING LIBERAL NUTJOB STOP BRINGING UP GEORGE W. BUSH!