Have you ever heard of or been to a debate?
Due Process is a Sham
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
Have you ever heard of or been to a debate?
I'm aware of what a debate is. I think that this doesn't really apply to the case at hand. There is a given standard of evidence, and then, there is the evidence, and a conclusion to be drawn. Does the conclusion, given the evidence, measure up to the standard of evidence? It should be equally clear both to the prosecuting and defending attorneys.
And in fact, it probably is. I was watching a show on the ID channel. The prosecuting attorney, I think, made the claim: "I'm pretty sure he raped her. I couldn't prove it, though." Translation: "I argued it in court even though I knew that my evidence didn't match the standard of evidence. To supplement that, I offered a rherotical/sophistic display to the jurors in an effort to manipulate them into agreeing with me in spite of my lack of proof." That's not justice.
One further point. It's not a contingent fact like in a debate. Here is a question, and it just so happens that these two individuals answer it differently.
No. Prosecuting and defending attorneys will come to opposite conclusions every. single. time. Regardless of the evidence. The prosecuting attorney doesn't just so happen to see the evidence and conclude "guilty," nor does the defending attorney just so happen to see the evidence and conclude "not guilty." No. Regardless of the evidence, that's how they're being paid to argue. There's something seriously wrong about this.
Agreed.
Tinark
Active member
The defense attorney is a hired gun, to argue the best case for the client. This is predicated on the idea that everyone has the right to defend themselves against an accusation. The defense attorney is hired as an agent of the accused to fulfill that role. It is fair because not everyone is equally capable of defending themselves, so an attorney gives them more of a chance to present things in a way that best disputes the allegations.
Is your problem with the idea of someone being allowed to defend themselves, or being allowed to hire someone to act as their agent to defend themselves?
An attorney can't do anything that a person, if skilled enough, couldn't do themselves in their own defense.
Tinark
Active member
Because you have stated that they are easily manipulated, fooled, etc. Which means you think their decisions are based little on the truth and evidence presented on the matter and more on their emotional whims and weaknesses.
And how does that insure a reduced error rate, more importantly, a reduced error rate in convicting innocent parties?
It's set up so they attack each others arguments, this prevents "group think".
An example;
A defense attorney has a client, the client got drunk at a party and passed out in his buddies car, next thing he knows he's in the hospital and their telling him they pulled him out of the drivers seat of the car and his buddy is dead. The car flipped and caught on fire and bystanders pulled them both out as the car burned.
Open and shut right? But on cross examination of the bystander that pulled him out the attorney notices that he says he walked up from behind the car and pulled him out of the DRIVERS side.
Which side is that?
The left side of course.
Out of all the bystanders and first responders in the heat of the moment it didn't occur to anyone that if the car is upside down then the driver side and passenger side are reversed.
The client was in the passenger seat right where he passed out and his buddy was driving.
Without someone aggressively arguing the opposite then people tend to come to the conclusion most comfortable. Without our adversarial system no one would argue in favor of those accused of the most distasteful things. No one would find the holes on the story and shine a light on them.
Devil's advocate is a term brought to us by the RCC IIRC.
Give that man a cigar, he nailed it! :cigar:
I believe that you are misrepresenting me, Tinark. What you have in mind is what I wrote in my OP:
"Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice."
There is here no question of juries actually being easily manipulated, deceived, etc. My point was that this is what at least one of the two lawyers is trying to do. Presumably, one of the lawyers knows that what he's saying doesn't match the evidence. Yet, he's trying to convince the jury of the opposite. He's trying to trick/deceive the jury into believing something that he presumably knows is false.
Are juries actually able to be deceived so easily? Maybe, maybe not. That's not where I was placing my emphasis.
You ask this as though this should be the sole and primary goal of any criminal justice system. I disagree. The sole and primary goal of any criminal justice system should be the administration of criminal justice. Making sure that innocent parties don't get convicted is part of that, but that's only one factor.
You have in mind the (probably rare) instances in which the police arrest an innocent person.
I have in mind the (probably common) instances in which the police arrest a guilty person, but he either gets off scott free or on a reduced sentence simply because of the way that our criminal justice system works.
Case 1: A man is driving while intoxicated (the man himself admits to being intoxicated while driving, even well after the fact). A policeman pulls him over, determines that he's intoxicated and arrests him. Yet, the man's case ends up being thrown out. Why? Because (so far as I can remember being told), the cop ended up not showing up to court.
Case 2: A guy (for reasons I can't remember) steps out of his vehicle and starts threatening the driver of another vehicle and banging on his window with his hands. The driver therefore pulls out his gun and shows the assailant that he is armed. The assailant flees, calls the police, and reports that somebody just threatened him with a gun. The cop shows up to the scene, interviews both parties, determines the facts of the situation, and tells the guy with the gun that he was perfectly within his rights. The assailant, however? He gets off scott free. No arrest is made, even though he is perfectly guilty of assault (at least). Why? Because the armed driver is only passing through and doesn't want to face the massive inconvenience of showing up to court.
Case 3 (this third is taken from Homicide Hunter): A maintanence man of an apartment lets himself into an apartment, rapes a woman, and then murders both the woman and her children. The investigators investigate, accumulate overwhelming forensic evidence which conclusively proves that the maintanence man did it and...he goes to trial, and the jury rules "not guilty." Why? Because the defense attorney puts our guy on the stand and he starts talking about how he used to be a bad guy, but he's changed now. He's training in a seminary to become a protestant pastor! "Boo hoo! Boo hoo! Look at me, so innocent!"
Three obviously guilty people got away. They shouldn't have. But they did. All because of the way that our broken system works (or doesn't, for that matter). If we had a Judge Dredd style criminal justice system, things would have turned out much differently (and more justly, for that matter; all three parties would have received the just sentences that they deserved). In all three cases, the guilt of the accused was perfectly obvious. A trial by jury was completely unnecessary and, not only that, its very existence only served to circumvent justice.
At least in the first two cases, the police officer should have been able to serve as judge, jury and executioner. Those criminals should have been arrested, judged and sentenced on the spot.
1. Are you introducing a fictive or actual case?
2. Are you really arguing that it's only possible to see "weak spots," so to so speak, in the evidence, and to evaluate the evidence fairly, if someone is being paid specifically to poke holes in the evidence and argue in favor of the defendent's innocence regardless of the evidence (and to argue this point, mind you, as though it were fact to a jury, not to an expert or set of experts)? I don't think that's correct. Your case smacks too much of TV drama and not enough of reality.
Unless the defendant pleads guilty, yes. Justice is far more likely to be served than your one man with a gun model.
Devil's Dictionary brought in part by Jefferson for BEL.
I was watching once and the perp was on the sidewalk in cuffs. Jeans, no shirts or shoes. You know the look. They were digging in his pockets after they asked if there was anything that would hurt him in them. They pulled out the bag of dope asked what is this. He said that isn't mine. They said, it was in your pants. He said, they're not my pants.
I love that show.
Why? Just watch an episode of cops. Do you really have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of most of those people? Do you think that the cops have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of most of those people? Do you think that the facts are not clearly established and really need a jury to establish them?
I just cited a vast number of instances which plainly contradict this. In fact, above, I even cited 3 instances in which due-process obstructed justice.
But you still doubt this? Fine. Then let's compare a case.
Cop catches a guy with a pound of cocaine. The perp sure talks a lot, but has no way of explaining the fact that he has that cocaine. He also has plastic baggies and a whole lot of 1s, 10s and 20s in his wallet.
My proposed system: Cop determines that he is in possession of illegal narcotics with intent to sell. He interrogates the guy, judges him guilty, checks out the guy's prior criminal history, and then, taking various things into account, sentences him, let us say, to 30 years in prison (or whatever the appropriate penalty is). The criminal disagrees with this? Fine. Then he can appeal. But good luck winning an appeal (which would involve, ordinarily, not a matter of fact, but a matter of law; an appeal based on a matter of fact would only involve evidence that the officer didn't have available or failed to consider adequately).
Justice served! And note, this took less than an hour and saved a ton of tax payer money on court costs.
The actual system: The criminal gets arrested. He may or may not have his case thrown out because of the failure of the cop to show up. Presupposing that the case goes forward, the prosecution may offer him a plea deal (say, 5 years) to avoid the hassle of a long and expensive trial. Or perhaps the defendent can hire a really good attorney who can beat the charges.
Justice most certainly not served.
Hey, they might not have been his pants. He might have had no clue about the dope. That's a reasonable doubt, right?
lain:
And one further point, CM, let us consider what happens if our drug dealer does hire a defense attorney. Whether or not he's successful in getting the drug dealer off scott, what is he going to argue?
"Look, I know that he was found with cocaine, baggies and a whole lot of loose change, but that don't prove nothin!"
Really? It would be comic if he weren't actually trying to persuade people.
As I said. Due process does not safeguard justice. It makes a mockery of justice.
"Look, I know that he was found with cocaine, baggies and a whole lot of loose change, but that don't prove nothin!"
Really? It would be comic if he weren't actually trying to persuade people.
As I said. Due process does not safeguard justice. It makes a mockery of justice.
Well, part of the defense is to question the veracity of the supplied evidence.
If they didn't then there would be many more persons found guilty who were not.
LA
I'm not convinced of this, if by "many more," you mean "a much higher percent."
And besides, in cases like the ones I've posed, does even the defense really believe the nonsense coming out of his mouth? "No, no, I know all of that forensic evidence irrefutably proves he raped and murdered that woman and murdered those children. But he's such a nice guy!"
lain: