Do you believe in due process?

[AreaCode707]

Not referring to any thread or poster here - I haven't been hanging on P&N lately.

Given the number of comments on OT and P&N both, I wonder if we (US) still value due process.

In every article about crime, be it murder, rape, white collar financial scandal, shoplifting, whatever, there are a plethora of comments that range from "throw the rat in jail for life!" to "people like him/her should have their guts cut out" and worse. There are often declarations of obvious guilt and scoffing at the courts who try these people and hear evidence, and frustration expressed at the cost.

I think due process is under-recognized as being such a critical part of keeping us a free country. Our off-the-cuff responses on an emotional level when a particularly heinous crime has been committed don't (I hope) reflect our actual opinion about the "alleged" perp's right to due process.... or does it?

[edit]
Necroing this thread on purpose, not neffing.

THIS is the type of thread that prompted my topic: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025503

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Due process, every time. Every one of us is just one bad situation from sitting in a defendant's chair.

 

[Schmide]

What a bunch of false choices. If you're going to make a poll at least give it some variance.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Schmide
What a bunch of false choices. If you're going to make a poll at least give it some variance.

I'm at work and didn't feel like spending the time to make a scientifically correct poll, something I generally do try to do. If you want to post replacement options I'll swap them out. I'm more interested in hearing what people have to say anyway. It's not like AT polls are ever representative of anything relevant anyway.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
SNIP ... It's not like AT polls are ever representative of anything relevant anyway.

You are correct.

 

[yllus]

I'm not sure anything is as important in having all men treated equally before the law as due process is.

 

[LunarRay]

"Got off on a technicality" is the oft used term that suggests a dislike for Due Process. Guilt or Non Guilt is determined by the 'Finder of Fact'. Opinion of folks regarding Guilt and Punishment comes from Moonbeam's hate factor, usually. It is a nothing. It is irrelevant. Due Process flows from the beginning to the very last appellate review.
The Constitution seems never to please everyone always. People speak their hate and their discontent on all issues. This is just one.

 

[FoBoT]

"No person shall be deprive of life, Liberty, or property without due process of law"

 

[DaveSimmons]

Due process is always appropriate, even for the suspected terrorists and innocents in gitmo.

On the other hand it's all right to say things like "throw them in jail for life" if they've been caught keeping a woman as a slave in a shed or were wounded in a bank holdup, the "after a fair trial" is still implied for many of us.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Due process, every time. Every one of us is just one bad situation from sitting in a defendant's chair.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Everyone should be for "due process". That is what keeps you from being locked up on a whim without evidence. It is one of the, if not the most, important rights we have.

Oh wait, that's what Bush claimed for years that he could to anyone.....where was the complaint from everyone then?

 

[AreaCode707]

No comments from those that hate on criminals and call for quick punishments, eh? I was hoping we'd hear some actual feedback from that side.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No comments from those that hate on criminals and call for quick punishments, eh? I was hoping we'd hear some actual feedback from that side.

I wouldn't confuse a hyperbolic post about how someone who sets fire to a 3 year old should be "taken out and shot" for the poster's actual opinion regarding the justice system or due process.

Also, I think a lot of the rhetoric simply omits "if convicted" because it's implied. Frankly it's a testament to the faith in general of out judicial system that we're so readilly willing to allow the govt to pass judgment on criminals. In Iran, for example, you have state run media telling you a certain protestor or dissident was also a child murderer and that's why he was killed. If you lived in a country where persons you knew to be innocent were being tortured or killed by the govt I doubt you'd see much enthusiasm for the police or justice system carrying out their duties.

To the extent someone says "No trial, just kill them" and really means it, that person is dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
No comments from those that hate on criminals and call for quick punishments, eh? I was hoping we'd hear some actual feedback from that side.

I wouldn't confuse a hyperbolic post about how someone who sets fire to a 3 year old should be "taken out and shot" for the poster's actual opinion regarding the justice system or due process.

Also, I think a lot of the rhetoric simply omits "if convicted" because it's implied. Frankly it's a testament to the faith in general of out judicial system that we're so readilly willing to allow the govt to pass judgment on criminals. In Iran, for example, you have state run media telling you a certain protestor or dissident was also a child murderer and that's why he was killed. If you lived in a country where persons you knew to be innocent were being tortured or killed by the govt I doubt you'd see much enthusiasm for the police or justice system carrying out their duties.

To the extent someone says "No trial, just kill them" and really means it, that person is dumb.

I think that everyone is for due process in the abstract. The real way you can tell people who don't respect it is when the shit hits the fan. We've had people on here argue vehemently for the government's continued ability to imprison people for the rest of their lives without trial.

 

[AreaCode707]

Necroing this thread on purpose, not neffing.

THIS is the type of thread that prompted my topic: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025503

What's sad? This should be standard procedure for those pedo's.

The article is kind of vague on what exactly the boy did to the tot (maybe noone knows?). If he really had sex with the girl, then I have to give the dad props for getting rid of a serious pedo in the making.

I would rather foot the bill for this mans stint in the pokey than to pay for his sons "rehabilitation"....fuck 'em.

This is Darwinism at work. The kid no longer gets to be a deviant, and the father no longer gets to procreate. To be honest, while it's a horrible situation - justice has been and is being served.

im of the belief that all child molestors should be put to death the first time their caught. That's not something you get a 2nd chance on.

So, in my opinion, the father just saved the taxpayers some money.

Rehab center? Are you out of your fucking mind? These sick fucks should be executed. It was a 3 year old. If he's starting out at this age, who knows what kind of nutjob he'll grow up to be.

I don't have (and don't want) any kids, and I still am indifferent on his death. Looking and touching are two different things. One is fine. One is not. He made the wrong choice and paid with his life. Life isn't fair, etc, etc.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Necroing this thread on purpose, not neffing.

THIS is the type of thread that prompted my topic: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025503

I think due process is a good thing. I also think that our laughable court and justice system have turned the crowd (including me) into raving idiots at times.

As an example lets look at John Allen Muhammad, the beltway sniper. This man was caught red handed and given due process. But then appeals courts take over, and his lawyer fights stating he was insance, etc, etc. It makes due process seem like a joke - you can be given a fair hearing and trial and then appeal it over and over again. It is like when your mom says you cannot spend the night at a friends house so you then go ask your dad if you can.

What we worry about in a lot of these situations is that due process will result in excuses and appeals or a lack of justice. We give a pedophile a few years in prison and he gets out and rapes/kills a child again. And we are told by experts that pedophilia is not a choice and that it is a mental illness and that there is no recovering - recovering from being a pedophile is like recovering from being gay.

My point is that we, as a society, give criminals far too many rights and chances. So when something heinous like this comes up we would rather see someone be shot in the head without due process then we would see this person go to jail for a couple of years and come out and commit the same crime.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Not referring to any thread or poster here - I haven't been hanging on P&N lately.

Given the number of comments on OT and P&N both, I wonder if we (US) still value due process.

In every article about crime, be it murder, rape, white collar financial scandal, shoplifting, whatever, there are a plethora of comments that range from "throw the rat in jail for life!" to "people like him/her should have their guts cut out" and worse. There are often declarations of obvious guilt and scoffing at the courts who try these people and hear evidence, and frustration expressed at the cost.

I think due process is under-recognized as being such a critical part of keeping us a free country. Our off-the-cuff responses on an emotional level when a particularly heinous crime has been committed don't (I hope) reflect our actual opinion about the "alleged" perp's right to due process.... or does it?

[edit]
Necroing this thread on purpose, not neffing.

THIS is the type of thread that prompted my topic: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025503

I agree fully with due process, this doesn't mean i would not kill someone for a crime witnessed if it was severe enough.

 

[jonks]

I think due process is a good thing. I also think that our laughable court and justice system have turned the crowd (including me) into raving idiots at times.

As an example lets look at John Allen Muhammad, the beltway sniper. This man was caught red handed and given due process. But then appeals courts take over, and his lawyer fights stating he was insance, etc, etc. It makes due process seem like a joke - you can be given a fair hearing and trial and then appeal it over and over again. It is like when your mom says you cannot spend the night at a friends house so you then go ask your dad if you can.

My point is that we, as a society, give criminals far too many rights and chances. So when something heinous like this comes up we would rather see someone be shot in the head without due process then we would see this person go to jail for a couple of years and come out and commit the same crime.

You can't appeal over and over, you get to appeal to a higher court, of which there's generally two. Nor can you raise new defense grounds like insanity on appeal. The reason we give "criminals" "too many rights" is because our justice system is determined to do the very best job it can in ensuring that innocents do not fall victim to it. Granting appeals and ensuring the defendant's due process rights are not abused do not make the process appear to be a joke; the exact opposite is true. It shows our dedication to justice, even for the very worst among us. Since no justice system is perfect, our best bet is to hew as closely as possible to our ideals and not allow anecdotes to dictate policy.

 

[bfdd]

I am a fan of due process.

 

[Kadarin]

The comments from that other thread show that people really don't think the issue through very deeply at all. What if, for example, someone was falsely accused of the crime? Due process is there to make the best attempt possible to determine actual guilt, and allow the punishment to fit the crime.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The comments from that other thread show that people really don't think the issue through very deeply at all. What if, for example, someone was falsely accused of the crime? Due process is there to make the best attempt possible to determine actual guilt, and allow the punishment to fit the crime.

Exactly, that is the reason why i wrote what i wrote, if i am not an eye witness i really need to let my feelings for the crime at hand go and leave it up to be proven or not.

This isn't always easy to do, believe you me, i know that, but it's needed.

I will also say that i would need to be sure about what i saw to take more action than an arrest, i'd need to see a weapon or immediate threat of great harm.

These might be the legal terms that i have to follow but i think we can all agree that "great harm" means an action beyond a slap, like a raised fist after being told to stop or any kind of tool. (in my line of work, any firearm means a tool)

 

[whylaff]

I don’t think comments like those are an accurate reflection on the way that the majority of people think, especially when put in situations where they are part of the decision making process. It is also important to differentiate between procedural due process and substantive due process when posing a question like that, especially from a constitutional law perspective. (Procedural is the actual procedure of providing due process under the law, substantive is the actual substance of that procedure.) There are very few who do not believe in a right to substantive due process, but it is an interesting argument none the less.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Not referring to any thread or poster here - I haven't been hanging on P&N lately.

Given the number of comments on OT and P&N both, I wonder if we (US) still value due process.

In every article about crime, be it murder, rape, white collar financial scandal, shoplifting, whatever, there are a plethora of comments that range from "throw the rat in jail for life!" to "people like him/her should have their guts cut out" and worse. There are often declarations of obvious guilt and scoffing at the courts who try these people and hear evidence, and frustration expressed at the cost.

I think due process is under-recognized as being such a critical part of keeping us a free country. Our off-the-cuff responses on an emotional level when a particularly heinous crime has been committed don't (I hope) reflect our actual opinion about the "alleged" perp's right to due process.... or does it?

[edit]
Necroing this thread on purpose, not neffing.

THIS is the type of thread that prompted my topic: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2025503

I somehow knew the thread you were referring to before I even clicked the link. Yeah, there's no shortage of morons in that thread backing what the father did...I wasn't one of them.

 

[monovillage]

I am a fan of due process, just not the laughable justice system that the US justice system has evolved into. If you have money or political connections or a big enough advocacy group supporting you the road to justice is a slow and chancy one at best. The Right to a speedy trial isn't just for the accused, it's also for society.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I think there's some misrepresentation at work here. There's a difference between 'due process' and 'cruel and unusual punishment', and neither are the same as a civilian making a choice for justice and vengeance.

In the thread you link, what the father did had nothing to do with due process, cruel and unusual punishment, or constitutional rights. The father is not bound by those amendments, only the government is. The father is CERTAINLY guilty of the crime of murder however.

Now, rather or not I (or anyone else) support his choice to murder what he saw as amoral and dangerous is another thing altogether.

There's also no clear line of 'due process' even when we're actually talking about it. It's entirely possible to take it too far to the point where the justice system is neutered and incapable of actually enforcing justice. A lot of what falls under the 'due process' umbrella is really just the rich and powerful looking for a way out, or politicians and lawyers/judges playing games with people's lives. It's entirely possible to disagree with certain things done in the name of 'due process' but still support the Constitutional ideal of 'due process'.