2
2
0
Today is the first day that I have ever expended all my votes. I just got so emotional about the Marine couple that was murdered and I went on an upvote spree for torturing the degenerats as though my voting would somehow spring a new castration law into effect or something...
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/another-death-penalty-in-newlywed-marine-couple-murders
I was close posting another response, but wondered if there was a logical reason... So here goes.
Why is it that judges or jury or someone can't call BS when an attorney tries some crap like 'undersized brain' or whatever. We all know it is legal BS. The legal system was created by us, we can set its precedent; why the hell do judges sit there like "well, yeah, they did that in 1902, so yep, I will allow that retarded claim to be heard" all the while the defendant is sitting there with a clown smile on his face because he knows he is about to win the trial. Why do we tie the hands of our protection services with crap like, 'Oh, you do not have a piece of paper saying you could find that murder weapon, so now it doesn't exist anymore...'
What is going on here?
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/another-death-penalty-in-newlywed-marine-couple-murders
I was close posting another response, but wondered if there was a logical reason... So here goes.
Why is it that judges or jury or someone can't call BS when an attorney tries some crap like 'undersized brain' or whatever. We all know it is legal BS. The legal system was created by us, we can set its precedent; why the hell do judges sit there like "well, yeah, they did that in 1902, so yep, I will allow that retarded claim to be heard" all the while the defendant is sitting there with a clown smile on his face because he knows he is about to win the trial. Why do we tie the hands of our protection services with crap like, 'Oh, you do not have a piece of paper saying you could find that murder weapon, so now it doesn't exist anymore...'
What is going on here?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
I am an attorney and I can explain it the best way I can. I have represented individuals from speeding tickets to murder charges and everything inbetween. Our founding forefathers were very smart men. They set up a system where based on the premise that we would rather allow a guilty person go free than an innocent person be put in prison. On an almost weekly basis we see on the news of an individual being released from prison after a lengthy incarceration that were totally innocent based on updated DNA evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, etc.
Now the practical matter of representing those individuals. Our Constitution, which we all took the oath to defend affords everyone convicted of a crime the right to representation, a trial by jury (not a trial of your peers), the right to remain silent, the right to compel evidence and witnesses, all while the government having the burden of providing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state cannot meet that burden, I do not have any issue with my guy walking. If the state can meet its burden and my guy goes to prison, I do not have any issue with that either.
As a society, we throw a fit if any of our basic Constitutional rights are infringed upon. The same should be said about the right to reprensentation and a jury trial.
As far as the particular Marine case goes, I hope the defendants are found guilty. Period.
Now the practical matter of representing those individuals. Our Constitution, which we all took the oath to defend affords everyone convicted of a crime the right to representation, a trial by jury (not a trial of your peers), the right to remain silent, the right to compel evidence and witnesses, all while the government having the burden of providing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state cannot meet that burden, I do not have any issue with my guy walking. If the state can meet its burden and my guy goes to prison, I do not have any issue with that either.
As a society, we throw a fit if any of our basic Constitutional rights are infringed upon. The same should be said about the right to reprensentation and a jury trial.
As far as the particular Marine case goes, I hope the defendants are found guilty. Period.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Michael Strickler
Well said SSG Ralph Innes. That answer helps me to understand the ‘idea’ behind it all. And I agree that we should keep innocent individuals out of prison as often as we can.
Can I ask you a follow up though? Would it not make more sense to make the system more "harsh?"
Of course there will always be those “crimes of passion or stupidity,” but what about limiting everything else. For example, if the punishment for speeding 5mph over the limit was five years in prison, I can guarantee that I would be using cruise control to back out of my driveway.
A gang member will take the blame for ... so that all his buddies don't have to, knowing that he will only spend 5 years in prison, get street cred, etc. and his buddies will be free though they had two strikes and would have ended up spending life.
Instead of people weighing the morals of should I do it or not they are weighing it against “considering the …% chance that I will get caught, would I be ok serving this sentence?
…Keep in mind I realize that I am trying to create a system that considers all of us evil identities (hey they messed it up for everybody) and that I am trying to make the punishment so harsh that people would be afraid to mess up since I cant trust them to do the right thing anyway
…and that I am hoping my idea would put you out of a job… sorry
Can I ask you a follow up though? Would it not make more sense to make the system more "harsh?"
Of course there will always be those “crimes of passion or stupidity,” but what about limiting everything else. For example, if the punishment for speeding 5mph over the limit was five years in prison, I can guarantee that I would be using cruise control to back out of my driveway.
A gang member will take the blame for ... so that all his buddies don't have to, knowing that he will only spend 5 years in prison, get street cred, etc. and his buddies will be free though they had two strikes and would have ended up spending life.
Instead of people weighing the morals of should I do it or not they are weighing it against “considering the …% chance that I will get caught, would I be ok serving this sentence?
…Keep in mind I realize that I am trying to create a system that considers all of us evil identities (hey they messed it up for everybody) and that I am trying to make the punishment so harsh that people would be afraid to mess up since I cant trust them to do the right thing anyway
…and that I am hoping my idea would put you out of a job… sorry
(0)
(0)
SSG Ralph Innes
For some crimes, increasing the minimum punishment would decrease the crime. Like your example of the speeding and 5 years in jail. However, the crimes where society generally wants the individuals in prison, the punishment, be it the minimum or the maximum, does not seem to matter. The states where the death penalty is still in place doesn't seem to matter. Illinois doesn't have a death penalty and they have a murder rate of 5.5. Missouri, where I live, has put to death the most individuals this year and our rate is 6.3.
I think mandatory minimums is also a terrible idea. I don't like the government having that much say over the legal system. I am being honest when I say this, but 12 individuals sitting in that jury box listening to all the evidence generally always get it right. If I represented a criminal client, I could publish the evidence that would make it sound as if my client should have walked. However, the state could do the same. The jurors hear it all. They generally cut through the bullshit and get it correct.
I think mandatory minimums is also a terrible idea. I don't like the government having that much say over the legal system. I am being honest when I say this, but 12 individuals sitting in that jury box listening to all the evidence generally always get it right. If I represented a criminal client, I could publish the evidence that would make it sound as if my client should have walked. However, the state could do the same. The jurors hear it all. They generally cut through the bullshit and get it correct.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I agree with you, Cpl Michael Strickler - 100%. The "technicalities" that get people off have bothered me all my life. Time and time again we see a cut and dried case where the person who committed the crime is guilty as sin, but some procedural error or some police mistake gets them off.
I have long thought that our justice system just plain sucks. Sadly, I don't see things changing much. In my limited experience with the judicial system, if you're guilty and you know it, there's a good chance you'll walk or get a lighter sentence. And if you're innocent, but by some unfortunate circumstance were in the wrong place at the wrong time (or something like that), you will get the book thrown at you. It is sickening.
And I know that's not true across the board. It's just that it seems to be true much more often than it should be.
I have long thought that our justice system just plain sucks. Sadly, I don't see things changing much. In my limited experience with the judicial system, if you're guilty and you know it, there's a good chance you'll walk or get a lighter sentence. And if you're innocent, but by some unfortunate circumstance were in the wrong place at the wrong time (or something like that), you will get the book thrown at you. It is sickening.
And I know that's not true across the board. It's just that it seems to be true much more often than it should be.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There is no F*****g reason behind it or excuse. I say he gets what he has coming to him!
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google