How justice used to work and how it works now.

[ichy]

On September 6, 1901 Leon Czolgosz shot president William McKinley. McKinley died of his injuries eight days later. Czolgosz's trial started on September 23, he was convicted the next day, and on September 26 he was sentenced to death. Czolgosz was electrocuted on October 29, 1901.

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan murdered 32 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Right now his court martial is scheduled for August 20, nearly three years after the shootings that he is unquestionably guilty of. He will probably be sentenced to death, but with the way the appeals process for military death sentences works he'll probably die of natural causes before the sentence is carried out.

On January 8, 2011, Jared Lee Loughner murdered 6 people in a shooting spree that also badly injured congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. It has been a year and a half since then and the legal wrangling about his mental competency is still ongoing and a trial does not appear to be anywhere close.

I'd imagine the point I'm trying to make is rather clear. Our legal system used to have some kind of common sense. If you committed a terrible crime that you were unquestionably guilty of justice was swift and final. When you commit murder in front of dozens of witnesses there's no need for endless legal handwringing, hundreds of thousands of pages of BS paperwork and years of delay. Yes some cases are far more complicated but the two that I cited are not. Our society has advanced in almost every area except for in how we deal with crime.

 

[PokerGuy]

The concept of a speedy trial is dead. The legal process moves so slow it makes a glacier look like a raging river by comparison.

 

[a777pilot]

If justic were speedy and true how would this nation pay all its lawyers?

 

[ichy]

There are still plenty of complex cases out there that rely on scientific evidence, lengthy wiretaps, don't have clear witnesses, etc etc. I know that slam dunk cases like these are actually an anomaly, but when they do come up there's no reason they shouldn't be dealt with expediently.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The legal system allows people who are against the death penalty plenty of options to stall the process.

Has nothing to do with guilt; it is the precedent that they fear being set.

 

[mvbighead]

I would have to agree with you. I've long thought this myself.

There isn't much else they can figure on these people. They killed someone, they were caught red-handed. And what they did was so grotesque that giving them any time in court other than a simple, you're guilty, is simply a waste of a lot of resources that could be put towards better use.

 

[boomerang]

There are still plenty of complex cases out there that rely on scientific evidence, lengthy wiretaps, don't have clear witnesses, etc etc. I know that slam dunk cases like these are actually an anomaly, but when they do come up there's no reason they shouldn't be dealt with expediently.

Exactly right. But the system is broken beyond repair. It's going to have to be torn down and rebuilt. Human nature and greed got us to where we're at today. Reset and start over and it will just reoccur. We're no more advanced today (as humans) than we were thousands of years ago. Perps have rights, victims - not so much.

 

[Linux23]

i say we move toward a Judge Dredd type legal system.

 

[corwin]

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan murdered 32 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Right now his court martial is scheduled for August 20, nearly three years after the shootings that he is unquestionably guilty of. He will probably be sentenced to death, but with the way the appeals process for military death sentences works he'll probably die of natural causes before the sentence is carried out.

I'm so sick of hearing about this piece of shit on the news and his refusing to shave his fucking beard it's just not funny, I wish that damn cop had been a better shot or those damn doctors could have worked just a little bit slower on his ass...last night they said they're going to forcibly shave him

Clear cases like this, Jared and our newest poster boy for a firing squad James should get the fastest trials in history, there's no use for any of them in society, they're a waste of air

 

[Texashiker]

Anyone here play the game half-life 2?

When the guards were chasing gordon freeman, they would say "outbreak" from time to time.

I read somewhere that the guards said "outbreak" because criminals should be treated like a disease. The longer the criminals stayed in the community, the longer they had to spread the infection. The infection being crime.

In the case of the justice being drawn out, the system is being dragged to the knees.

Just as the immune system reacts to clear an infection, so should the justice system act swiftly to remove the infection from society.

The longer the infection stays around, the more damage it does to the system as a whole.

 

[PokerGuy]

Clear cases like this, Jared and our newest poster boy for a firing squad James should get the fastest trials in history, there's no use for any of them in society, they're a waste of air

Yep, in cases where it's absolutely clear who committed the crime and what they did, the trial and subsequent punishment should not take more than a day or two. No reason to make it a long drawn out process.

 

[actuarial]

Yep, in cases where it's absolutely clear who committed the crime and what they did, the trial and subsequent punishment should not take more than a day or two. No reason to make it a long drawn out process.

While I agree with you, the question become who decides what's 'absolutely clear' and what's not?

I'm not usually a fan of making slipperly slope arguments, but there needs to be some kind of actual process to help determine this. So what are the mechanics?

 

[soulcougher73]

I agree. Its really sad.

 

[fskimospy]

Most criminal prosecution doesn't even take place in a court today, so why would you compare the two?

 

[EagleKeeper]

dp

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yep, in cases where it's absolutely clear who committed the crime and what they did, the trial and subsequent punishment should not take more than a day or two. No reason to make it a long drawn out process.

While I agree with you, the question become who decides what's 'absolutely clear' and what's not?

I'm not usually a fan of making slipperly slope arguments, but there needs to be some kind of actual process to help determine this. So what are the mechanics?

Min of 2 adult eyewitness

or

Video recording

or

Caught in the process with evidence

or

Evidence & confession prior to involvement with LEO


Get rid of the mental health defense
If they are able to plan it in advance; they are able to be held accountable.

 

[fskimospy]

Min of 2 adult eyewitness

or

Video recording

or

Caught in the process with evidence

or

Evidence & confession prior to involvement with LEO

You realize that eyewitnesses are among the least reliable forms of evidence, right? Also, caught in the process by who? Police? An eyewitness? There are tons of corrupt police in this world, are we now giving them the power to imprison whoever they wish without recourse?

This stuff all sounds good until you think just how incredibly easily it could be abused. I find it strange that conservatives who are frequently so distrustful of government involvement want to give government such enormous police powers.

 

[Icepick]

On September 6, 1901 Leon Czolgosz shot president William McKinley. McKinley died of his injuries eight days later. Czolgosz's trial started on September 23, he was convicted the next day, and on September 26 he was sentenced to death. Czolgosz was electrocuted on October 29, 1901.

On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan murdered 32 people at Fort Hood, Texas. Right now his court martial is scheduled for August 20, nearly three years after the shootings that he is unquestionably guilty of. He will probably be sentenced to death, but with the way the appeals process for military death sentences works he'll probably die of natural causes before the sentence is carried out.

On January 8, 2011, Jared Lee Loughner murdered 6 people in a shooting spree that also badly injured congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. It has been a year and a half since then and the legal wrangling about his mental competency is still ongoing and a trial does not appear to be anywhere close.

I'd imagine the point I'm trying to make is rather clear. Our legal system used to have some kind of common sense. If you committed a terrible crime that you were unquestionably guilty of justice was swift and final. When you commit murder in front of dozens of witnesses there's no need for endless legal handwringing, hundreds of thousands of pages of BS paperwork and years of delay. Yes some cases are far more complicated but the two that I cited are not. Our society has advanced in almost every area except for in how we deal with crime.

It would be preferable to move the trials along at a much quicker pace for incidents that are as clear-cut as these.

If justic were speedy and true how would this nation pay all its lawyers?

Right. There's not much incentive for these people to reform the system when they are being paid massive amounts of money per hour.

 

[fskimospy]

Right. There's not much incentive for these people to reform the system when they are being paid massive amounts of money per hour.

You realize that the vast, vast majority of lawyers involved with the criminal justice system are not paid massive amounts of money per hour, right? They are the district attorneys, their staff, and the public defenders. All of these are salaried positions.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I have no problem with executing a murderer... in fact I'm all for it. But the fact of the matter is, the way America uses the death penalty I think it is better that it is just abolished. It does not deter anyone the way it is used. And when you figure the chance of an innocent being executed, I don't see any good in having it the way we do now. I wish there was some kind of law that great sped up the process for crimes with indisputable evidence, but that'll likely never happen.

 

[rudder]

I see another issue. Had law enforcement know about Leon Czolgosz's intentions prior... he would have been investigated. Due to political correctness Maj. Hassan was never fully investigated. Authorities were aware of his activities but for the most part he was left alone.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You realize that eyewitnesses are among the least reliable forms of evidence, right? Also, caught in the process by who? Police? An eyewitness? There are tons of corrupt police in this world, are we now giving them the power to imprison whoever they wish without recourse?

This stuff all sounds good until you think just how incredibly easily it could be abused. I find it strange that conservatives who are frequently so distrustful of government involvement want to give government such enormous police powers.

This idea is so supremely idiotic one wonders how it could appeal to anyone.

 

[Saint Nick]

What is worse is that Hassan is still getting paid ...

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I see another issue. Had law enforcement know about Leon Czolgosz's intentions prior... he would have been investigated. Due to political correctness Maj. Hassan was never fully investigated. Authorities were aware of his activities but for the most part he was left alone.

Here we have a fine example of of false attiribution based on a pre-conceived bias. We don't know if it was due to political correctness.

 

[techs]

Despite all the time and effort Texas still routinely convicts innocent people and sentences them to death.

Imagine how often wrong they were a hundred years ago.