Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTalumna06
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 prejudiced. 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'.