[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.