How justice used to work and how it works now.

[corwin]

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.

So what? It doesn't excuse his actions that someone didn't catch on before hand and stop him from doing his dirty deed, doesn't make him any less guilty of killing all those people, he needs to be shot post haste and the PC bullshit needs to stop too.

 

[corwin]

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.

Yes we do know, are you versed in this case at all? I live 30 miles from Fort Hood and get every single update plus some...yes it was because of PC bullshit

 

[Texashiker]

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.

If the jury would do their job, we would have less convictions of innocent people.

A lot of people think "if a person is accused of a crime, then they "must" be guilty."

 

[corwin]

If the jury would do their job, we would have less convictions of innocent people.

A lot of people think "if a person is accused of a crime, then they "must" be guilty."

That's the bigger problem today, too many people forget it's innocent until PROVEN guilty and assume guilt from the start instead...and when things are clear they aren't given the option to just get it over with quickly

 

[Paul98]

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.

Agreex100

 

[Paul98]

That's the bigger problem today, too many people forget it's innocent until PROVEN guilty and assume guilt from the start instead...

If you shoot a bunch of people and I see you do it, that is more than enough to prove they are guilty.

 

[fskimospy]

If you shoot a bunch of people and I see you do it, that is more than enough to prove they are guilty.

Except of course you realize that your eyewitness testimony is the most frequently wrong among all forms of evidence, right? It's strange that you would want to convict people more quickly based on the least reliable form of evidence.

 

[corwin]

If you shoot a bunch of people and I see you do it, that is more than enough to prove they are guilty.

Clear cut cases are much different...and if you see someone shooting a bunch of people you're not going to be on the jury😉 If I see someone shooting a bunch of people I will try to make sure there is no need for a jury

 

[ichy]

Texas still routinely convicts innocent people and sentences them to death.

Do you have any evidence to back up this horseshit?

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have any evidence to back up this horseshit?

Well there have been at least 4 people on death row in Texas who have been exonerated in the last few years.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Ah 1901..that was a great time
Things were so much simpler then.

 

[shira]

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.

Check out

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/How_many_innocent_people_are_there_in_prison.php

The Innocence Project has a well-established record for exonerating convicts, several on death row. But if you had YOUR way, all convicts on death row would be dead within a few weeks or months.

 

[rudder]

So what? It doesn't excuse his actions that someone didn't catch on before hand and stop him from doing his dirty deed, doesn't make him any less guilty of killing all those people, he needs to be shot post haste and the PC bullshit needs to stop too.

I agree. I was just adding to the differences of justice in the early 1900's to that of today. It is interesting that he has not yet even gone to trial. I wonder if it be postponed till December 2012 or if the trial on August 20th will be a 1-2 day affair which is a lot longer than it should be.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

Backlog of cases? Everybody gets to wait their turn?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

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

Innocent until proven guilty?

Kind of like how police officers get put on paid leave if they are accused of misconduct?

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.

Use Colorado as an example.

two of the three of the conditions that I stated are valid.
And I only asked for one.

Then one can always attach life to any sentence based on attempted murder (explosives in his house)

One can tamper with evidence; video tampering can be detected fairly easily.

Look how quickly the holes in the media presentations were discovered
in the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida.

what an eye witness sees initially is usually more accurate than when they are briefed or get a chance to think about what they saw. Let others interpret was was seen.

 

[fskimospy]

Use Colorado as an example.

two of the three of the conditions that I stated are valid.
And I only asked for one.

Then one can always attach life to any sentence based on attempted murder (explosives in his house)

One can tamper with evidence; video tampering can be detected fairly easily.

Look how quickly the holes in the media presentations were discovered
in the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida.

what an eye witness sees initially is usually more accurate than when they are briefed or get a chance to think about what they saw. Let others interpret was was seen.

No seriously, eyewitness testimony has a really bad record. False identifications happen constantly, as do totally flawed accounts of what actually happened. People are really bad at making new memories in traumatic situations.

 

[Harrod]

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

No kidding, if you are so crazy to value human life, then you are probably to crazy to realize the value of your own life.

 

[corwin]

No seriously, eyewitness testimony has a really bad record. False identifications happen constantly, as do totally flawed accounts of what actually happened. People are really bad at making new memories in traumatic situations.

Which is why they should be interviewed at the time of the incident and later statements not taken after they've been influenced by the media and their own imaginations...it used to be much easier in the past when we didn't have 24/7 news coverage of every single thing influencing everyones perceptions

 

[fskimospy]

Which is why they should be interviewed at the time of the incident and later statements not taken after they've been influenced by the media and their own imaginations...it used to be much easier in the past when we didn't have 24/7 news coverage of every single thing influencing everyones perceptions

Even eyewitness testimony immediately following the event is notoriously unreliable. Under stress it gets even worse. There's a famous study where military members were interrogated for something like an hour. When asked to identify them later 2/3rds picked the wrong guy.

Eyewitness testimony is way way way too unreliable to be the basis for shipping someone off to jail immediately.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Which is why they should be interviewed at the time of the incident and later statements not taken after they've been influenced by the media and their own imaginations...it used to be much easier in the past when we didn't have 24/7 news coverage of every single thing influencing everyones perceptions

Still doesn't work:

Link

Eyewitnesses aren't very reliable.

 

[dmcowen674]

How justice used to work and how it works now


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 is the same situation with Government.

The Judicial system has been taken over by Corporate Lawyers.

Starting over is the only option.

 

[fskimospy]

No kidding, if you are so crazy to value human life, then you are probably to crazy to realize the value of your own life.

What's the point of getting rid of the mental health defense? First of all, insanity is really hard to prove. Second, do you know what happens to them if they are found not guilty due to insanity? They get shipped off to a mental institution for the criminally insane which has all the same bars on the windows. Funny thing is that with a regular sentence you get out when your time is up. With an insanity ruling you only get out if your doctors let you out. There have been cases where people found not guilty due to insanity have been in 'prison' far longer than they would have been without that finding.

I think people get tricked by the 'not guilty' finding when it's not really getting off at all.

 

[StrangerGuy]

If a murderer is found guilty beyond doubt and sentenced to death I don't see the point why they should be keep alive in jail for years.

 

[actuarial]

If a murderer is found guilty beyond doubt and sentenced to death I don't see the point why they should be keep alive in jail for years.

Because on numerous occasions it has turned out they weren't in fact guilty.

I don't agree with the death sentence out of principle, but if the death sentence is to exist a long appeals process has been proven to be a necessity.