Woman blinded by acid wants same fate for attacker

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

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?

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[PhoenixAzul]

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul

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.