Is the current trial system good or bad?

[fakename]

Morally, is the current way we conduct trials good or bad?

The recent Casey Anthony case has got me thinking about trials in general. Are there drawbacks to the way a case is argued under common law than in roman law?

And more specifically, do you think we should have double jeopardy -I mean what if you make didn’t test evidence that could have been tested which was relevant to the issue?

And a question about reasonable doubt which I’ve had for a long time -is reasonable doubt to wide a parameter? I think we should apply the total of human reason to solving crimes so we should shoot for using nothing short of geometric proof in constructing court cases. Therefore reasonable doubt should be discarded in favor of “logical contradiction”. If you can’t show that a case isn’t true, by showing that it leads to a contradiction, then you can’t say that anyone is guilty or innocent.

There are some problems of course with what I wrote but I want to here other’s ideas.

 

[jsaldar]

I agree that our current trial system has a great number of flaws. However, it seems to be the best one so far, I can’t really think of any other system that would work better. We also have to remember any trial run by humans is flawed we ourselves are not perfect.

The only consolation is that justice will be served by the supreme judge in the end.

 

[PeterGStanley]

The Justice system has nothing to do with morality or right and wrong - I always thought that that was how it worked until my own experience with it - Its about evidence only - what you can prove - it has nothing to do with right or wrong - a completely guilty person can be tried and has to be released if the evidence is not there - as we have seen in hundreds of crimes committed - also there are a lot of unethical deals going on in the back room that the people and the judge do not know about and are never told about. The system is heavily favored to the defendant and the victims really have no rights at all. Thats why detectives and police officers always try for a full confession .

 

[Rascalking]

Perfect is the worst enemy of good.

It’s not the best, in 90 percent of the cases, it works.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The ONLY way a defendant has a chance against the overwhelming budget and power of the prosecution is by a trial by jury of the defendant’s peers.

No one has come up with a better system.

[Personally, I would like for the jurors to be able to submit questions and demand answers.]
The other interesting thing is that people at home get to read the newspapers and get lots of background on the case from television. But the jurors ONLY get the testimony and the evidence. Period. And that is all they have to base their verdict on.

I personally did not follow the Anthony trial at all. But I was channelsurfing and happened to catch the defense attorney making part of his summation. In my opinion, the defense attorney chopped up the prosecution and made mincemeat out of it.*

 

[ZDHayden]

A comm professor I had once (I think he was the staff sponsor for the debate team, which is rather successful in competitions) who said that the current trial system, while probably the most effective we have thus far, is not so much about finding whether the defendant is necessarily guilty or not but rather about which side has the better argument. The guilt or innocence of the defendant is a product of this purpose. It does not matter, the professor argued, if the defendant actually did the crime so long as their argument is better than their opponent’s It struck me as a fairly accurate reflection.

 

[fakename]

A comm professor I had once (I think he was the staff sponsor for the debate team, which is rather successful in competitions) who said that the current trial system, while probably the most effective we have thus far, is not so much about finding whether the defendant is necessarily guilty or not but rather about which side has the better argument. The guilt or innocence of the defendant is a product of this purpose. It does not matter, the professor argued, if the defendant actually did the crime so long as their argument is better than their opponent’s It struck me as a fairly accurate reflection.

yeah, even my idea of geometric proof is open to this objection, that even the best arguments can be wrong. So valid arguments, I think many times, lead to incorrect conclusions and this would probably happen in trials.

How about a new type of trial proceedure -I call it King Solomon trials.

The purpose of the trial is not to use arguments to figure out who’s guilty but to put the defendant into scenarios where the prosecutor’s and defense attorney’s theories can be judged using game theoretic premises. If it worked for the exceedingly wise king of israel i’m sure it could work for us.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

The recent Casey Anthony case has got me thinking about trials in general. Are there drawbacks to the way a case is argued under common law than in roman law?

And more specifically, do you think we should have double jeopardy -I mean what if you make didn’t test evidence that could have been tested which was relevant to the issue?

Any time an actual court ends up finding differently than the “court of public opinion” has already established, these kind of questions are asked.

No, we should not have “double jeopardy”, which is nothing but a license to retry people based on outside opinions.

The emotionally based media hype that painted Ms Anthony as Wes Craven’s latest horror creation has always been based on nothing but conjecture & outside opinions of circumstantial evidence - it has all been after ratings & has sought only to emotionally affect their audience, not actually find any kind of truth.

It appears however, that the prosecution did not prove that their accusations were true. Yes, they were sufficient to show that Ms Anthony should not be considered for “mother of the year” anytime soon, but they did not show any reasonable proof that she did actually murder her daughter.

And a question about reasonable doubt which I’ve had for a long time -is reasonable doubt to wide a parameter? … Therefore reasonable doubt should be discarded in favor of “logical contradiction”. **If you can’t show that a case *isn’***t true, by showing that it leads to a contradiction, then you can’t say that anyone is guilty or innocent.

(My own emphasis added to the above)

That entire paragraph effectively reverses the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, in favor of assuming that accusation = guilt, placing the burden of proof not on the accuser, but on the accused.

That boils down to insisting that people who are accused of anything must prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility.

While such a system would certainly garner wonderful ratings & sell lots of newspapers and create all kinds of wonderful reasons for people to be publicly lynched, but historically things like double-jeopardy & presumption of guilt, have been & are used for some pretty horrible things…

 

[fakename]

Any time an actual court ends up finding differently than the “court of public opinion” has already established, these kind of questions are asked.

No, we should not have “double jeopardy”, which is nothing but a license to retry people based on outside opinions.

The emotionally based media hype that painted Ms Anthony as Wes Craven’s latest horror creation has always been based on nothing but conjecture & outside opinions of circumstantial evidence - it has all been after ratings & has sought only to emotionally affect their audience, not actually find any kind of truth.

It appears however, that the prosecution did not prove that their accusations were true. Yes, they were sufficient to show that Ms Anthony should not be considered for “mother of the year” anytime soon, but they did not show any reasonable proof that she did actually murder her daughter.

(My own emphasis added to the above)

That entire paragraph effectively reverses the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”, in favor of assuming that accusation = guilt, placing the burden of proof not on the accuser, but on the accused.

That boils down to insisting that people who are accused of anything must prove a negative, which is a logical impossibility.

While such a system would certainly garner wonderful ratings & sell lots of newspapers and create all kinds of wonderful reasons for people to be publicly lynched, but historically things like double-jeopardy & presumption of guilt, have been & are used for some pretty horrible things…

I did change my position to game-theory trials but let me defend some of my earlier views.

1. double jeopardy is necessary to remove accidents of reason made in the past. Since law should be rational double jeopardy should exist in order to make corrections to past cases. That double jeopardy could be used for venting outside opinions is 1) accidental -every system has flaws and we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, 2) irrelevant since we don’t know if the outside opinion is true or not -only on that basis do we need to make a decision.
2. I reversed the innocent until proven guilty part, but I also reverse guilty until proven innocent -it really depends on who makes the case first: the person advancing the claims first has to prove his side first. But here is where I come in and say that if the opponent cannot disprove the other side by finding a contradiction with his case -which is the ideal outcome -he has lost. It is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for loosing for suppose that the opponent proves his point without finding a contradiction with the other point. In that case it is possible that they have complementary points which fit together and in a sense, they both lose. In anycase it is possible to prove a negative -all a is b, no b is c, so no a is c. That is proved.

 

[PeterGStanley]

How would you feel about the justice system if a person who has committed a serious crime against you or a loved one - oh lets say a serious assault - and is let go or had their sentence significantly reduced because their willing to testify against some one else - this is something that truly happens in the system.

 

[PacoG]

Morally, is the current way we conduct trials good or bad?

The recent Casey Anthony case has got me thinking about trials in general. Are there drawbacks to the way a case is argued under common law than in roman law?

And more specifically, do you think we should have double jeopardy -I mean what if you make didn’t test evidence that could have been tested which was relevant to the issue?

And a question about reasonable doubt which I’ve had for a long time -is reasonable doubt to wide a parameter? I think we should apply the total of human reason to solving crimes so we should shoot for using nothing short of geometric proof in constructing court cases. Therefore reasonable doubt should be discarded in favor of “logical contradiction”. If you can’t show that a case isn’t true, by showing that it leads to a contradiction, then you can’t say that anyone is guilty or innocent.

There are some problems of course with what I wrote but I want to here other’s ideas.

First, it is hard to gauge the entire criminal trial system on the basis of one or two notorious trials. The Anthony and the OJ Simpson case were anomalies. They were not your run of the mill every day criminal cases. The prosecution wins pretty much 95 percent of the time (I don’t have the exact statistic) and if you count in guilty and no contest pleas (which are considered convictions), the percentage is much higher. There is a saying that bad cases make for bad law. This is one such situation.

The logical contradiction standard would be inconsistent with our legal tradition. The reason for reasonable doubt is that people are facing the loss of everything that we hold dear (their reputation, their liberty and in the worst cases, their life) and if we are going to take that away from them, we have to hold the state to the highest standard possible. This isn’t a high school debate round. This isn’t some ridiculous hypo in a logic class. This isn’t a divorce. This is people’s lives that are at stake. Forget about murder cases, think of the run of the mill misdemeanor DWI case… the defendant is facing losing his driver’s license, his employablity, his liberty.

The criminal trial system has been evolved over 1000 years…since William the Conquerer sent out the first common law judges to do justice. It has been tempered by U.S. and state constitutional experiences. We should not throw it out because of a couple of celebrated, sensational, summer made-for-tv trials.

 

[PacoG]

And more specifically, do you think we should have double jeopardy -I mean what if you make didn’t test evidence that could have been tested which was relevant to the issue?

One of the fundamental principles of the justice system (both civil and criminal) is that there should be finality in determinations. That is why we have res judicata, collateral estoppel and the doctrine of laches in the civil system. That is why we have double jeopardy in the criminal system.

What would you prefer? Would you allow the state can keep bringing acquitted defendants every time there is a new way of testing the evidence? Let’s just allow the all powerful State (which has unlimited funds, personnel and resources, and, as has history shown us, the tendency to oppress) to continually prosecute the same guy over and over again.

The Roman system was created to enforce order in a despotic kingdom. The continental system is a system made for subjects. The U.S. common law system is a system of a free people who value liberty and see deprivation thereof as an evil to guard against.

 

[PacoG]

One last matter. I think there is a misunderstanding about what “reasonable doubt” is. This is the definition that is used by all the federal district courts in the Fifth U.S. Circuit. It’s considered one of the better definitions out there.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense, and not the mere possibility of innocence. A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

 

[fakename]

One of the fundamental principles of the justice system (both civil and criminal) is that there should be finality in determinations. That is why we have res judicata, collateral estoppel and the doctrine of laches in the civil system. That is why we have double jeopardy in the criminal system.

What would you prefer? Would you allow the state can keep bringing acquitted defendants every time there is a new way of testing the evidence? Let’s just allow the all powerful State (which has unlimited funds, personnel and resources, and, as has history shown us, the tendency to oppress) to continually prosecute the same guy over and over again.

The Roman system was created to enforce order in a despotic kingdom. The continental system is a system made for subjects. The U.S. common law system is a system of a free people who value liberty and see deprivation thereof as an evil to guard against.

well how do you solve this problem: the law should be just, assume that someone is tried for a crime that he didn’t commit. Later he commits said crime but due to double jeopardy he can’t be prosecuted. So it happens that the law is not just. I’m not saying that the law should attack all crimes but the ones it does prosecute, it should prosecute well -that is justly, and as long as this scenario could exist then the system is contradictory. So it must be reformed.

Now I’m not sure what the reform should be right now, but clearly the system needs some change.

 

[PacoG]

well how do you solve this problem: the law should be just, assume that someone is tried for a crime that he didn’t commit. Later he commits said crime but due to double jeopardy he can’t be prosecuted.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How can someone be tried, acquitted and then go and commit the crime he was tried for later?

For example, if a defendant is charged with robbing a bank. He is acquitted and then sometime after his acquittal goes and robs the same bank. The first acquittal doesn’t bar a prosecution for the second offense. It’s a totally different criminal transaction.

Or are you talking about some stupid Star Trek scenerio where the defendant goes back in time and commits the crime he was charged with?

Maybe you don’t understand double jeopardy. Double jeopardy holds that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. It doesn’t preclude the state from prosecuting that person for other offenses he may have committed.

The Criminal Law system is about real people who stand to lose real things…their liberty, reputation, property and life. It isn’t about stupid game theory scenerios. Grow up.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I have only a few times been called for Jury Duty.
I was never picked for a Jury, thank God, as I would have
a very hard time convicting anyone unless you showed me basically
video evidence of a person actually committing a murder.
I am just horrified at the idea of sending an innocent person to jail. PERIOD.
Now, I say this sincerely. Back in the 1980s, my beloved mother
was mugged on her way back to her office. The guy got her purse, ran off,
and she, bless her heart, reacted by starting to CHASE the thug.
Mercifully, she tripped and fell down, bruising her face. Had she caught up
to him, he might have assaulted or even killed her. And for THAT, if I had caught him,
nobody on EARTH could have stopped me from tearing him limb from limb.
You just better NEVER hurt my saintly mother, no freaking matter WHO you are.

Now, I remember one time in a jury pool, the prosecutor asked us how many
of us went to church regularly? At the time I did, so I and several others raised our hands.
This made her - the prosecutor - look uncomfortable.
So she basically told us, up front, that the young man on trial for Murder had in fact
not killed ANYBODY. IN FACT, he had not even been inside the business when the
foul deed took place. IN FACT, she told us, he was sitting in the car, alone in the backseat, and unarmed. I was APPALLED that this fellow was on trial for Murder.
She had just admitted to us that he was not even on the premises where the crime took place. His crime? Basically, he had some acquaintance with the actual killer, and happened to be sitting in the car owned by one of the people who robbed the place.
Now, I know you should be careful who you hang around with, but there is no WAY
that she could have EVER convinced me that this KID knew that a robbery and murder was going to happen. It would, and could ONLY have been, a case of HIS WORD versus the Word of the robber and the killer. That could never be enough for me. ANYBODY can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and with the wrong people, that DOESN’T make them a conspirator and it DOESN’T make them guilty of murder. Or anything ELSE.
So I have a problem with both the System, and with some of the Laws. So after inquiring about our church habits, and after THEN telling us that basically this kid himself had actually not done a darned thing, she then asked us if any of us would have “difficulty” convicting him of the crime of “murder”. When several of our hands shot up, we were quickly dismissed from the pool of potential jurors, to my great relief.

 

[fakename]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How can someone be tried, acquitted and then go and commit the crime he was tried for later?

For example, if a defendant is charged with robbing a bank. He is acquitted and then sometime after his acquittal goes and robs the same bank. The first acquittal doesn’t bar a prosecution for the second offense. It’s a totally different criminal transaction.

Or are you talking about some stupid Star Trek scenerio where the defendant goes back in time and commits the crime he was charged with?

Maybe you don’t understand double jeopardy. Double jeopardy holds that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. It doesn’t preclude the state from prosecuting that person for other offenses he may have committed.

The Criminal Law system is about real people who stand to lose real things…their liberty, reputation, property and life. It isn’t about stupid game theory scenerios. Grow up.

Oh, so by “cannot be tried for the same crime twice” you mean, can’t be tried for the exact same crime twice. Nevermind then.

As for the game theory plan -I still think that might work, but I don’t have any specifics in mind.
One thing that still recurs though, is that since failures of our current system are rare, then it is fairly likely that there is little to lose allowing “vigilante” justice -basically regulators or town watches or something of the sort -to cover those rare failures. But I believe that Aquinas once proposed something he called equity courts to take care of these problems and I think that is a viable option.

 

[PacoG]

Oh, so by “cannot be tried for the same crime twice” you mean, can’t be tried for the exact same crime twice. Nevermind then.

As for the game theory plan -I still think that might work, but I don’t have any specifics in mind.
One thing that still recurs though, is that since failures of our current system are rare, then it is fairly likely that there is little to lose allowing “vigilante” justice -basically regulators or town watches or something of the sort -to cover those rare failures. But I believe that Aquinas once proposed something he called equity courts to take care of these problems and I think that is a viable option.

Equity courts have existed since the 1100s. They exist in the civil justice system.

There was an attempt to create them in the criminal system during the Elizabethan Era…it was the disaster known as the Court of the Star Chamber.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I have only a few times been called for Jury Duty.
I was never picked for a Jury, thank God, as I would have
a very hard time convicting anyone unless you showed me basically
video evidence of a person actually committing a murder.
I am just horrified at the idea of sending an innocent person to jail. PERIOD.
Now, I say this sincerely. Back in the 1980s, my beloved mother
was mugged on her way back to her office. The guy got her purse, ran off,
and she, bless her heart, reacted by starting to CHASE the thug.
Mercifully, she tripped and fell down, bruising her face. Had she caught up
to him, he might have assaulted or even killed her. And for THAT, if I had caught him,
nobody on EARTH could have stopped me from tearing him limb from limb.
You just better NEVER hurt my saintly mother, no freaking matter WHO you are.

Now, I remember one time in a jury pool, the prosecutor asked us how many
of us went to church regularly? At the time I did, so I and several others raised our hands.
This made her - the prosecutor - look uncomfortable.
So she basically told us, up front, that the young man on trial for Murder had in fact
not killed ANYBODY. IN FACT, he had not even been inside the business when the
foul deed took place. IN FACT, she told us, he was sitting in the car, alone in the backseat, and unarmed. I was APPALLED that this fellow was on trial for Murder.
She had just admitted to us that he was not even on the premises where the crime took place. His crime? Basically, he had some acquaintance with the actual killer, and happened to be sitting in the car owned by one of the people who robbed the place.
Now, I know you should be careful who you hang around with, but there is no WAY
that she could have EVER convinced me that this KID knew that a robbery and murder was going to happen. It would, and could ONLY have been, a case of HIS WORD versus the Word of the robber and the killer. That could never be enough for me. ANYBODY can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and with the wrong people, that DOESN’T make them a conspirator and it DOESN’T make them guilty of murder. Or anything ELSE.
So I have a problem with both the System, and with some of the Laws. So after inquiring about our church habits, and after THEN telling us that basically this kid himself had actually not done a darned thing, she then asked us if any of us would have “difficulty” convicting him of the crime of “murder”. When several of our hands shot up, we were quickly dismissed from the pool of potential jurors, to my great relief.

The question is that when the young man actually got his trial, how much of this information actually came out. And when the judge read the instructions to the jury, was the jury able to acquit based on him being caught at the wrong time at the wrong place.

This whole thing and the complications when a prosecutor wants to earn a reputation for being a tough person, bothers me tremendously. The prosecutor has basically unlimited time and money to attempt to make a case. And the defendant may only have a pro-bono public defender available to him or her.

On one hand you want to be tough on crime. On the other hand you don’t want someone put in prison so that some prosecutor can run for governor. Or get a television court room program paying tens of millions per year.

Remember the Duke University lacrosse team travesty.

 

[PacoG]

This whole thing and the complications when a prosecutor wants to earn a reputation for being a tough person, bothers me tremendously. The prosecutor has basically unlimited time and money to attempt to make a case. And the defendant may only have a pro-bono public defender available to him or her.

On one hand you want to be tough on crime. On the other hand you don’t want someone put in prison so that some prosecutor can run for governor. Or get a television court room program paying tens of millions per year.

Remember the Duke University lacrosse team travesty.

One of the reasons that we put such a great burden on the State is that the State has everything–money, personnel (both police and prosecutoral) and power. The Defendant–no matter how rich–will never equal out what the State has.

In the civil system, because you have two private persons, that inequality theoretically does not exist.