Rights, guilt and innocence

[Seshat]

I'm just raising the point that guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant to the legal system - only procedure.

Legal procedure is like scientific method: it's imperfect, but it's the best way mankind has found so far to obtain the desired result, while allowing for human fallibility.

In the case of science, the desired result is an ever-closer approximation of how the natural world works.

In the case of legal procedure, the desired result is catching as many criminals as possible while not falsely punishing the innocent.

And the jury, whose job it is to decide on that guilt or innocence, don't have access to all the facts pertaining to a case.

The job of both attorneys is to provide and present all the facts pertaining to the case; while doing so in ways which do not infringe on the rights of the innocent.

Human nature being what it is, if the attorneys were permitted to include evidence obtained illegally, some would do so. And that would lead to innocent people's homes being invaded, evidence being fabricated, and all sorts of other abuses of rights.

We know it would, because it has in the past.

And thus, it's not whether you did the crime or not, but how good your lawyer is.

If both attorneys are equally competent, the trial is fair. If one attorney is outstanding and the other is competent, the trail is less fair, but the facts are still all present and the jury has a reasonable chance to do their job well.

Its only if one of the attorneys is incompetent that the jury doesn't get enough evidence.

In saying that, therefore, should a lawyer bear any penalty of a conviction if they are later found innocent - and vice versa? (given stipulations...). yeah - probably going too far, but given what I just said above....

No. A lawyer who has presented evidence properly, and presented the case for their side properly, has done their job. They should not be penalised because of a jury decision, nor because their opposition in a particular case was outstanding where they were merely competent.

However, incompetent lawyers should be penalised. And most first-world legal systems do provide avenues for penalising the incompetent.

[Slytovhand]

NOOOoooooooo!!!! - Not the 'scientific method' agian...

Okies Seshat... I liked what you said at the end (not to say I didn't appreciate the rest), about the incompetent lawyers... could be interesting... have you suggested it in 'You're in Charge'?

[Seshat]

No: I'm staying out of that thread. I realised rapidly that my own contributions would quickly become novel-length, and I'm not interested in writing that right now.

[crazylegs]

But at the trial, it turns out that the search warrant was written up for 12 instead of 21 Murderer Blvd... legal technicality... case thrown out, person cannot be tried for those 15 murders ever again...... sort of the stuff the aforementioned perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher just love (thanks for the copy and paste, Rahmota )

The rule for double jeopardy (sp?) has been removed from UK law for exceptional circumstances after the terrible investigation and piss poor work of the MPS after the killing of Stephen LAWRENCE, so not applicable over here guys, make of that what you will.

[rahmota]

Seshat

No: I'm staying out of that thread. I realised rapidly that my own contributions would quickly become novel-length, and I'm not interested in writing that right now.

Oh please!!! I have a feeling that your ideas would be really interesting. Maybe instead of a novel the cliff notes version...

I am envisioning in fact are a miscarriage of justice - rather than law

The law isnt so much about justice per se but the law. Keeping order and control over the populace. Theoretically the law if followed will result in justice but that doesnt always work.

The rule for double jeopardy (sp?) has been removed from UK law for exceptional circumstances

Wow. I'm not so sure I like that. Whats to keep the prosecutors/state from tryign again and again and again to get a conviction on someone if they dont get one the first time? Yeah it sucks sometimes but its a lot better for society as a whole if the state has more motivation to get their job done the right way the first time than to let them have too much power and too much time to keep hounding someone.

sort of the stuff the aforementioned perry mason, ben matlock, johnnie cochran and jb fletcher just love (thanks for the copy and paste, Rahmota )

No problem. Thinking about it that would be a scary dream team of lawyers/investigator for a prosecutor to face.

[Seshat]

The rule for double jeopardy (sp?) has been removed from UK law for exceptional circumstances after the terrible investigation and piss poor work of the MPS after the killing of Stephen LAWRENCE, so not applicable over here guys, make of that what you will.

Evolution of the judicial system. Another part of the ever-continuing attempt to approach a perfect 100% innocents free, 100% criminals caught.

We'll probably never achieve it. But we can keep trying to approach it.

Oh please!!! I have a feeling that your ideas would be really interesting. Maybe instead of a novel the cliff notes version...

Perhaps later, after it's settled down a little. I can go through and pick out the main points I disagree with, and provide my reasons.

Wow. I'm not so sure I like that. Whats to keep the prosecutors/state from tryign again and again and again to get a conviction on someone if they dont get one the first time?

If I recall correctly, in the UK, judges are chosen, not elected. It's the same in Australia. The judiciary is held to a subtly different standard than it is in the USA. 'Exceptional circumstances' in the UK will probably be genuinely exceptional, not 'well, this will be a high profile case and increase my chances of being re-elected'.

Also, the rules about what the courts can award are different. I'm not sure of the details, but I think the 'pain and suffering' or 'emotional damage' awards are different. We don't get the kind of high payments USA courts sometimes award, unless there's a damn good reason for it. This acts to discourage spurious lawsuits - you just don't 'win the lottery' out of lawsuits here.

Again, I'm not sure of the details, but lawyers can't be paid out of the court's award to the victim. Legal costs, if assigned in a court award, go from the court's hands to the lawyers, and have a maximum payment rate. This reduces the ambulance-chaser effect.

The differences are all subtle, but these subtle differences make for a very different legal culture.

[crazylegs]

If I recall correctly, in the UK, judges are chosen, not elected. It's the same in Australia. The judiciary is held to a subtly different standard than it is in the USA. 'Exceptional circumstances' in the UK will probably be genuinely exceptional, not 'well, this will be a high profile case and increase my chances of being re-elected'.

Spot on, there has to be a massive new piece(s) of evidence, rather than a 'lets try this one again' approach. As far as I'm aware the law isn't backwards compatible, so it can onlybe used from when the law was created rather than since the beginning of legal history.

[rahmota]

Perhaps later, after it's settled down a little. I can go through and pick out the main points I disagree with, and provide my reasons.

Okay cool. Somehow I get the feeling that it is going to be rather interesting to see them. Especially from an outsiders POV as to the states.

If I recall correctly, in the UK, judges are chosen, not elected. It's the same in Australia. The judiciary is held to a subtly different standard than it is in the USA. 'Exceptional circumstances' in the UK will probably be genuinely exceptional, not 'well, this will be a high profile case and increase my chances of being re-elected'.

Spot on, there has to be a massive new piece(s) of evidence, rather than a 'lets try this one again' approach. As far as I'm aware the law isn't backwards compatible, so it can onlybe used from when the law was created rather than since the beginning of legal history.

Okay another one of those cross cultural confusions we get so often. As long as there are plenty of restrictions and controls on it I guess it would be useful in someways. Still with the american tradition of law and the constitution I'm not sure how well that would reconcile over here.

[crazylegs]

Okay another one of those cross cultural confusions we get so often. As long as there are plenty of restrictions and controls on it I guess it would be useful in someways. Still with the american tradition of law and the constitution I'm not sure how well that would reconcile over here.

Have a read of this article about the Lawrence murder, it explains rather nicely about the crap investigation and show why the law was changed http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/fe...rence.ukcrime9

[rahmota]

Interesting. Souds like thigns where rather bungled but I'm still not sure I like the removeal of the double jeopardy rules even in a case like that. I mean yeah OJ wound up gong free too but there's a reason why the cops and prosecuters need to make sure they keep their I's dotted and T's crossed. Because there ahve been too many times where convictions happy prosecutors or governments (including those who have non-elected judges) wanted someone convicted so they kept trying to nail a person as often and as much as they could.

There must be as many restrictions as possible on the government's powers to persecute and prosecute the individual yet still as few restrictions that let them function. If in protecting the innocent a small few guilty get through too then oh well that is the price to be paid for haivng a free society. Its better to have too much freedom and be responsible for your own self that to have too little freedom and have to rely upon the state for permission to live your life.

[crazylegs]

Unless you've known the despair of seeing the ones responsible for murdering your son wander free because of incompetence I don't think any of us can truely see the reason for the law.

For those who have seen that darkness I suppose it must give some hope that eventually justice will be served.

[rahmota]

Legs: True I suppose. And while emotionally I can agree with wanting to ensure justice is served logically I am still uncomfortable with allowing the prosecution to have that much power or many chances. I'd rather they be held to a higher standard so that they dont screw up in the first place.

[rahmota]

I saw this on my local news and wondered how this fits into some peoples idea of how rights/guilt and innocence and punishment. ie punishment fitting the crime.

MCARTHUR, Ohio (AP) - A southern Ohio man has dodged what could have been another nine months in jail for sharing a Little Debbie snack cake with a fellow inmate.

The case involves 21-year-old Timothy Caudill, who last year was held in a residential community corrections program in Nelsonville for breaking into a bar. While there, prosecutors say he bought an oatmeal cream pie from a vending machine and shared it with a fellow inmate who wasn't allowed to eat the snack.

Prosecutors in Vinton County asked Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Simmons to revoke Caudill's probation and put him in prison for nine months.

Instead, Simmons says Caudill will spend 30 days behind bars and pay $1,500 for the jail stay.

I'm not exactly thinking that is fair or doesnt fall under excessive punishment. Also in the state of ohio they charge you rent for your stay in jail. ie it costs you 12-20 bucks a day in jail minimum up to a bunch more. Which I'm not too keen on as I see that as a double punishment. yeah I understand the state is goign broke and criminals need to be punished but fair and equitable punishment can be foud that does not put a burden or hardship on people who are in for minor stuff or because they are desperate or poor. (dont kid yourself being poor is reason enough to wind up in jail in some areas, they just call it vagrancy or pandering or somesuch trumped up crimes.)

Couldnt they have just taken his snack priviledges away too? Or somethign else without wanting to revoke probation and call for 9 months in state pen?

Anyhow if this is the wrong place move it as you will but I thought it would fit best in this thread. Thank you.

[Slytovhand]

WTF?????

9 months for sharing a snack??

And I'm pretty flabbergasted that the lawful community can dictate what a person can and cannot eat (if they aren't actually providing that food themselves...). It was a 'Residential Community' program.. not jail. (I wouldn't be having vending machines in jails, personally...).

But I agree with you on that Rah... worse case scenario... suspend the 'snack privelege'.

After all... is it about 'punishment' or 'deterrent'??? (ooh - another thread.. )

Slyt

[rahmota]

slytovhand: Yep just another example of how persecutorial our justice system has become. Trying to throw the book on people for petty BS to show how tough they are on crime but unable to deal with any really serious issues.