Due Process is Stupid And Should Be Waived Most of the Time

Quincy

Quincy

New member
Traditio said:
See? Another excellent example. If someone is caught red-handed trying to assassinate a public authority, should he really be entitled to due process?

I say "no." The police should judge him, sentence him and execute him right there on the spot.
Click to expand...

Man, you really don't think it's possible for authorities to be corrupt do you?

Even if they weren't corrupt, what if you enter a friend's house to apologize for a public argument from last night and they're laying there dead.... you don't know what happened? The police walk in right after you and decide to arrest you and execute you the next day since everyone knows you had the argument and threatened the person. You had the motive to murder, so why bother with due process?
 
Caledvwlch

Caledvwlch

New member
Quincy said:
Man, you really don't think it's possible for authorities to be corrupt do you?

Even if they weren't corrupt, what if you enter a friend's house to apologize for a public argument from last night and they're laying there dead.... you don't know what happened? The police walk in right after you and decide to arrest you and execute you the next day since everyone knows you had the argument and threatened the person. You had the motive to murder, so why bother with due process?
Click to expand...

Hey! There's no room for nuance in this discussion!
 
csuguy

csuguy

Well-known member
To remove/make optional due process would be to place a lot more power in the hands of the police - it would usher in a police state. While an emergency might justify a temporary police state, it is not pleasant to live under and allows for an easy abuse of power. Also - making intuitive decisions about a case when people's lives are a stake is wrong - you need to properly evaluate the evidence and let the person defend themselves. Not that due process eliminates abuse of power or always results in the right verdict - but by involving more people in the decision making process, like those that have a stake in the justice system (one's peers), it makes it more difficult to abuse power and helps to examine the issue from multiple perspectives.
 
journey

journey

New member
No thanks - I vote to keep due process and rights for the accused. Some of the accused are innocent. For similar reasons, I vote to keep elected officials instead of a dictator form of government. Elections do cost us a lot of money, but things like this are the mark of a civilized country with a free people.
 
kmoney

kmoney

New member
Hall of Fame
Traditio said:
If the police are corrupt, then the internal affairs units should be able to arrest/imprison corrupt policemen. If the internal affairs units are corrupt, then the police should be able to arrest/imprison corrupt internal affairs people. Or let us posit a third police force which can do this.

Police branch A polices civilians police branch C. Police branch B polices police branch A. Police branch C polices police branch B.

That said, I think that a primary police force and an internal affairs force are sufficient.
Click to expand...
How would investigations against police work? How would one originate?

Do they get due process? :eek:
 
Tinark

Tinark

Active member
Traditio said:
In criminal trials, there are, I take it, two things which must be determined: matters of fact and matters of law. That is, answers to two questions must be provided in order to ensure a fair verdict and sentence for the criminal: 1. What actually happened? 2. What point of the law applies?

The scope of the first question may be narrowed in a criminal case: Here is the crime of which the accused is accused. Did he actually commit that crime?

The second question: Granted that he did that of which he is accused, how does the law apply to his particular case?

Due process ensures that the criminal is treated fairly, and that these two questions are answered fairly and adequately.

For matters of fact, there are juries.

For matters of law, there are judges.

For the execution of sentences, there are executioners.

And due process is perfectly superfluous in at least some cases, namely:

When the matter of fact is evident, because the police officers are witnessing it happen, or because there is an abundance of witnesses or physical evidence, and the mental state of the criminal is not in doubt.

Consider the following case, for example: Suspects have just robbed a bank. Police arrive before the suspects can escape. Suspects fire shots at the police.

There's no question of fact. The police are certain that the suspects are shooting at them. There's no question of matters of law: 1. Bank robbery, 2. attempted murder of policemen.

There's no need for separate judges, juries and executioners. Once the police apprehend the suspect, they should be able to be judge, jury and executioner right there. The suspect shouldn't even make it to the police station alive.

In such cases where the facts are manifestly evident to the police officer, the only trial that a suspect should receive, if he should receive one at all, is in an appelate court.
Click to expand...

You've been reading too much Judge Dredd.
 
Tinark

Tinark

Active member
Traditio said:
This likewise would have prevented the Michael Brown protests. The facts of the case were evident enough: Robbery of a convenience store, assault, assault on a police officer, and attempted murder of a police officer (he reached for the police officer's gun)? No need to claim self-defense.

The cop could have judged him, sentenced him and executed him right there.

Then the headlines wouldn't have read: "Police shoots an unarmed suspect."

The headlines would have read: "Policeman executes a condemned criminal."

And that wouldn't provide much impulse for protests, would it?
Click to expand...

Attempted murder is worthy of the death penalty? In what system of justice are you getting that from? You are aware that the Catholic position is against the death penalty, right? Why do you identify as Catholic? Sounds like you should split off from the Catholic church and create the 40,001th denomination of Christianity.
 
Tinark

Tinark

Active member
You do realize people lie and can be mistaken, or have their own biases and agendas, even in so called obvious cases? Especially so when there is a conflict of interest. This is why all sides of a story need to be heard by an impartial body before any sentence is dealt out. What you are proposing is just insane.
 
Morpheus

Morpheus

New member
Tinark said:
You've been reading too much Judge Dredd.
Click to expand...

Imagine how his "philosophy" (chuckle) would change after reading "Watchmen". You know, "Crime should be dealt with by a group of disparate superheroes. And global economics and government can only be properly manipulated by the super-genius of that group."
 
Traditio

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Tinark said:
Attempted murder is worthy of the death penalty? In what system of justice are you getting that from? You are aware that the Catholic position is against the death penalty, right? Why do you identify as Catholic? Sounds like you should split off from the Catholic church and create the 40,001th denomination of Christianity.
Click to expand...

There is no official Catholic doctrine which condemns the death penalty. The Catechism says that the death penalty is, in principle, permissible, though practically unnecessary (and therefore impermissible) most of the time.

I agree with the doctrine (the death penalty is, in principle, permissible) but deny the practical assessment of Pope John Paul II (it's practically unnecessary most of the time).

Any Catholic who denies that the death penalty is, in principle, permissible as a just penalty is a heretic: he must assert that the Law of Moses was unjust.

In fact, I think that attempted murder can merit the death penalty. A forteriori, the attempted murder of an official of the State merits the death penalty as his just due.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top