Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus
My argument is how is our legal system any better when clearly you have to have money in order to get off, when you've done the crime? Like OJs first crime with his wife, we all know he killed her. To think differently shows complete stupidity. If that were me or anyone else on this board, that trial would have been over in two minutes and we would still be in prison. How is that justice? In other countries can the criminal actually sue? Like deepimpact said. That's stupid. Rights? Why? So Ted Bundy should have rights after he killed all of those women. Just lock em' up and throw away the key. So what makes our justice system any better than theirs?
Yeah, I agree. We also need to get rid of the pleading insanity rule too. It's dumb. Charles Manson is a good example of that. He lucked up and escaped the death penalty too. And that reminds me, death row is unecessary too. Get rid of it. If you know they've done the crime, kill em' right away. What's the point of a death row? Doesn't make sense to me. Sorry guys, our justice system sucks and frankly I think it's just as bad as other countries. Here it's all about money. How is that any better? It's still an unfair system that can be made fair.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus
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.
|
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."