3 ms·

1) Agree: Presumption of guilt is definitely a problem. I would assume we could blame prejudices, arrogance (over confidence in pre-judging), or profession apat

by Sakes 16y ago

1) Agree: Presumption of guilt is definitely a problem. I would assume we could blame prejudices, arrogance (over confidence in pre-judging), or profession apathy for this. 2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in any way because they think the accused might be innocent they are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury. 3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power? This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute, which are typically wrong. 4) Agree: I would guess that this is the sad consequence of the talent going where the money is. In some states lawyers are required to do X amount of pro bono cases a year. I am sure this helps but maybe there is something else we could do. 5) ?: Do you have examples of this for Judges that oversee criminal court proceedings? 6) No opinion here for the prison system.

Natsu 16y ago
For #2, you have them doing things like hiding exculpatory evidence. I don't think that's what they should be doing. If they find something that proves a guy innocent (e.g. they do a DNA analysis that excludes the suspect), they have no right to hide it just to get a conviction. For #3, I tend to agree with you, but there are a handful of hang 'em judges out there. For #5, I don't have any examples because that happens only in a handful of states and the people who appoint the judges usually have more sense than to appoint someone absurd. That said, Supreme Court appointments only require Presidential approval and Congress' consent to the choice. There has been a justice or two that wasn't exactly a highly regarded legal mind, but with the appointments being so contentious these days, in practice, they tend to appoint people with auspicious pedigrees.
pyre 16y ago
> 2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a > plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in > any way because they think the accused might be innocent they > are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury. What about the prosecutors that do things like test the limits of laws just so that they can be 'tough on crime.' Example are: prosecuting people under wiretap laws for filming the police, or prosecuting teenagers as child pornographers for sending nude images to each other through MMS. Prosecuting people for filming the police has less to do with 'punishing criminals' and more to do with political posturing with the police force (i.e. you rub my back, I'll rub yours). Prosecuting teens for 'sexting' is more about: 1) looking good with the locals for being 'tough on crime,' and 2) forcing the prosecutor's morals on other people (i.e. "I don't think that teens should be sexting, so I'll go all-out against them to show them that it's wrong, even of the punishment grossly outweighs the crime."). > 3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power? > This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute, > which are typically wrong. Read the judges' decision in the teen sexting case in Florida that went to the state supreme court (I think that it was a state-level case and not a federal-level case, where Florida was just were the Xth Federal District Court is located...).

by Sakes 16y ago

Natsu 16y ago

For #2, you have them doing things like hiding exculpatory evidence. I don't think that's what they should be doing. If they find something that proves a guy innocent (e.g. they do a DNA analysis that excludes the suspect), they have no right to hide it just to get a conviction. For #3, I tend to agree with you, but there are a handful of hang 'em judges out there. For #5, I don't have any examples because that happens only in a handful of states and the people who appoint the judges usually have more sense than to appoint someone absurd. That said, Supreme Court appointments only require Presidential approval and Congress' consent to the choice. There has been a justice or two that wasn't exactly a highly regarded legal mind, but with the appointments being so contentious these days, in practice, they tend to appoint people with auspicious pedigrees.

pyre 16y ago

> 2) Disagree: Prosecutors only caring about their kill ratio is a > plus to me. This is what they should be doing. If they slack in > any way because they think the accused might be innocent they > are taking away the power of decision from the judge or the jury. What about the prosecutors that do things like test the limits of laws just so that they can be 'tough on crime.' Example are: prosecuting people under wiretap laws for filming the police, or prosecuting teenagers as child pornographers for sending nude images to each other through MMS. Prosecuting people for filming the police has less to do with 'punishing criminals' and more to do with political posturing with the police force (i.e. you rub my back, I'll rub yours). Prosecuting teens for 'sexting' is more about: 1) looking good with the locals for being 'tough on crime,' and 2) forcing the prosecutor's morals on other people (i.e. "I don't think that teens should be sexting, so I'll go all-out against them to show them that it's wrong, even of the punishment grossly outweighs the crime."). > 3) Wha?: Judges only care about exercising power? > This seems like a blanket statement, like an absolute, > which are typically wrong. Read the judges' decision in the teen sexting case in Florida that went to the state supreme court (I think that it was a state-level case and not a federal-level case, where Florida was just were the Xth Federal District Court is located...).