Woman blinded by acid wants same fate for attacker

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

Good question. I've never thought about it that way. I would have to say both. When I speak of both, OJ's case would be an example of the results, death row would be an example of the law. There are other examples, those are just two.

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?

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[ASTalumna06]

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.

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."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Zephyrus

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Zephyrus]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I see what you're saying. I'll probably be doing criminal defense (private) among other things very soon,

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?

[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.

[Kevin]

Zeph, the problem with DUI laws in this country is that most states make no distinction between someone who has literally had one too many and someone who is completely blitzed. I'm guessing that the individual who hit KSigKid was probably in the blitzed column, but there are a lot of folks who get DUIs who really are not much more dangerous than someone talking on their cell phone. People do make mistakes and DUI is just one sort of behavior which is dangerous. It is already punished disproportionately to other risky behavior, so what would you change? Would you put someone in the electric chair after the first offense?

And your burglar situation... you just changed the facts in a major way. If they are in your home, i.e., not running away, that's a much different situation than one where their backs are turned to you and they're fleeing.

As for the movie... let's stick to real life examples. Hollywood productions are probably not the best sorts of materials to rely on when you're shaping your views as to crime/punishment, dontchathink?

Finally, as for criminals having more rights than victims, that's just not true. I'm assuming you are a law abiding citizen who has had minimal contact with the criminal justice system. While my contact is indirect as of yet (I plan to go into criminal law, but I do work with many attorneys who do criminal cases), I can tell you that the system is definitely not stacked against victims. At least not in Oklahoma. We lock LOTS of people up.