4 ms·

> I'm confused at the article. What part of the 6th amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions...") distinguishes "non-serious" crimes from "serious crimes"? The

by vageli 7y ago

> I'm confused at the article. What part of the 6th amendment ("In all criminal prosecutions...") distinguishes "non-serious" crimes from "serious crimes"? They may be referring to felonies, but yeah the wording seems strange to me as well.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Do you know why even felonies would be distinguished here, even if that's what they meant? The amendment literally says "in all criminal prosecutions"... how does "all" turn into "some"?
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  The Supreme Court tends to issue narrow opinions only on the case or controversy (Article III, Section 2) before it. The Court does not decide on matters not before it, so if the issue before it was about "serious crimes". The case was originally brought against Louisiana which had laws that distinguished between different kinds of crimes. Quoting the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana: "Additionally, La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) provides in part that “[c]ases in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” If the Court said nothing of other ways of classifying crimes, then that is all that means. It doesn't mean that it's constitutional, it's just that the court doesn't rule on cases and controversies that are not before it.
- beervirus 7y ago
  For sufficiently minor infractions (e.g. traffic tickets) the line between civil and criminal blurs a bit.
- pnw_hazor 7y ago
  There are 100s of years of common law and law making trying to sort these kind of questions out. This is what appellate courts and legislatures are for. Written laws, no matter how detailed or precise, will have gaps that the common law fills in. Later, in some cases, legislatures update the law to conform with common law or to repeal/override common law. There is a lot case law looking at which crimes are considered serious. In some cases, crimes explicitly considered non-serious in one jurisdiction may be considered serious in other jurisdictions.

by vageli 7y ago

mehrdadn 7y ago

Do you know why even felonies would be distinguished here, even if that's what they meant? The amendment literally says "in all criminal prosecutions"... how does "all" turn into "some"?

AaronFriel 7y ago
The Supreme Court tends to issue narrow opinions only on the case or controversy (Article III, Section 2) before it. The Court does not decide on matters not before it, so if the issue before it was about "serious crimes". The case was originally brought against Louisiana which had laws that distinguished between different kinds of crimes. Quoting the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana: "Additionally, La. C.Cr.P. art. 782(A) provides in part that “[c]ases in which punishment is necessarily confinement at hard labor shall be tried by a jury composed of twelve jurors, ten of whom must concur to render a verdict.” If the Court said nothing of other ways of classifying crimes, then that is all that means. It doesn't mean that it's constitutional, it's just that the court doesn't rule on cases and controversies that are not before it.
beervirus 7y ago
For sufficiently minor infractions (e.g. traffic tickets) the line between civil and criminal blurs a bit.
pnw_hazor 7y ago
There are 100s of years of common law and law making trying to sort these kind of questions out. This is what appellate courts and legislatures are for. Written laws, no matter how detailed or precise, will have gaps that the common law fills in. Later, in some cases, legislatures update the law to conform with common law or to repeal/override common law. There is a lot case law looking at which crimes are considered serious. In some cases, crimes explicitly considered non-serious in one jurisdiction may be considered serious in other jurisdictions.