Should double jeopardy be abolished?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D_Quintero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
manualman:
By the chief. Because it would be the law. “Sorry, Bud. This is the third time in five years. Law says I gotta let you go.”
Click to expand...
Right. The chief, who got where he is by violating the Constitution, and who stays where he is by his officers violating the Constitution is going to fire an officer who helps him stayh in power. That’ll happen.
40.png
manualman:
And if he failed to do it, the ACLU, Jesse Jackson et all would have a field day publicly flogging the guy and the elected official who hired him until both lost their jobs.
Click to expand...
Realize that nobody is talking about relaxing the standard of reasonable doubt here. No reason this would lead to any innocent man being convicted. But it oughtta make it a lot tougher for a guilty man to get off.

Right now, the VICTIM pays the price when cops make errors. That AIN’T right.

And many an innocent man has paid the price when cops made “errors.”

The fact is, following the Constitution isn’t all that onerous. There are lots of good cops who do a good job and never violate anyone’s rights.
 
40.png
manualman:
By the chief. Because it would be the law. “Sorry, Bud. This is the third time in five years. Law says I gotta let you go.” And if he failed to do it, the ACLU, Jesse Jackson et all would have a field day publicly flogging the guy and the elected official who hired him until both lost their jobs.
Click to expand...
This has been tried, and it didn’t work. Another failed idea: Letting the criminal sue the cop for illegal searches in civil court.

Only the exclusionary rule has worked in terms of preventing violations of the Fourth Amendment.
 
40.png
manualman:
Right now, the VICTIM pays the price when cops make errors. That AIN’T right.
Click to expand...
In what way does the victim “pay the price”? How is a murder victim better off if his murderer is convicted? How is the victim of an assault or rape better off? Does the conviction make them 'feel better"? What if they convict the wrong person? How would the victim “feel” then?

One of the resons we have constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable search and siezure is because throughout history many governments/prosecuters have pursued"justice" by means of manuafactured evidence and perjured testimony.

Those checks are there for a reason.

In our criminal justice system the rights of the accused MUST outweigh the rights of the victims of the crime. The highest goal MUST be to acquit the innocent rather than convict the guilty. Anything else results in mob rule.
 
You might feel differently if someone you knew were raped and her attacker was let back on the street on a technicality.

Yes, I DO think she’d be safer if he were locked up. Call me crazy.

Doesn’t seem all that hard. If a judge rules improper search, a black mark goes on the public record, subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Cross a threshold, lose your position. How exactly would a crooked chief hide this info?
 
40.png
manualman:
You might feel differently if someone you knew were raped and her attacker was let back on the street on a technicality.
Click to expand...
And we might feel differently if we were wrongly accused and convicted through a violation of our rights.
40.png
manualman:
Doesn’t seem all that hard. If a judge rules improper search, a black mark goes on the public record, subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Cross a threshold, lose your position. How exactly would a crooked chief hide this info?
Click to expand...
How would you make him fire the man?

Would you sue him? The jury would be composed of people who looked to that chief for their safety.
 
40.png
manualman:
You might feel differently if someone you knew were raped and her attacker was let back on the street on a technicality.

Yes, I DO think she’d be safer if he were locked up. Call me crazy.
Click to expand...
Again, show me ONE CASE where a violent major offender (rape, murder etc) is on the street because of a procedural error. Seriously, I’ve seen a BOATLOAD of TV shows based on this premise, but have never heard of an actual case.

Second, if we shortcut the rights of the accused and convict the wrong guy we’ve just made society that more unsafe because we aren’t even looking for the guy that actually did the crime.
 
I watched a tv show one time about some white men who murdered (brutally) a black man in the south, before civil rights. They were, of course, aquited by their peers. After the trial the murderers wrote books on the details of how they murdered the black man. I think they even showed where they had buried the body.

Yes! I think double jeopardy should be abolished.
 
40.png
BillP:
Again, show me ONE CASE where a violent major offender (rape, murder etc) is on the street because of a procedural error. Seriously, I’ve seen a BOATLOAD of TV shows based on this premise, but have never heard of an actual case.

Second, if we shortcut the rights of the accused and convict the wrong guy we’ve just made society that more unsafe because we aren’t even looking for the guy that actually did the crime.
Click to expand...
Doing so would be a DISGUSTING violation of her privacy. Do you REALLY think I’m going to publish the name of this person on the web? Hasn’t she suffered enough? What the H#@$ is wrong with you? I have no idea how often this happens. But can tell you for DARN sure that it has.

Perhaps we should clarify a few things here. There are evidenciary violations that open the VALIDITY of the evidence to question. Those are important. Chain of custody of evidence and similar things.

But procedural stuff like improperly written search warrants, REAL evidence discovered as a result of questioning without Miranda rights being read and so on? I mean, come on! Yes, it is wrong and illegal to question a guy before he is informed of his rights. But if he lets slip where the gun is hidden during such questioning and the gun proves he did it, then HE DID IT! The stupid mistake or deliberate omittance of telling him his rights does not make him innocent. Give me a break.

Vern, Right now, the system depends on mostly elected judges throwing out evidence when procedures are not followed. It does not appear that these judges let violations slide to bump their popularity. Why not simply have the judicial branch track officer violations and sic the attorney general on any local jurisdictions not enforcing the “X strikes and you’re out” law?
 
I didn’t ask you to violate ANYONES privacy.

I didn’t ask you to cause ANYONE shame or embarrassment.

I didn’t ask you to reveal the name of ANY woman who was sexually abused.

I simply respectfully and civilly asked you for ONE case in which a person guilty of a major crime had been freed because of a procedural error by the police.

And you reply with this:
Doing so would be a DISGUSTING violation of her privacy. Do you REALLY think I’m going to publish the name of this person on the web? Hasn’t she suffered enough? What the H#@$ is wrong with you?
Click to expand...
Apparantly you have no need to provide evidence for your claims. I guess I am supposed to take whatever you say as the gospel truth without asking for clarification, evidence or facts to back up your asssertions.

Nor, apparantly, do you need to demean yourself by actually addressing those with whom you are in discourse in a civil and dignified manner.

I’ve heard all I need to hear from you Sir.

Thank you for your time. I’m sorry to have wasted it.
 
Perhaps I am unclear. I am personally aware of one such case. There is no way in which I can substantiate it to your satisfaction without advertising to the world once again the humiliation of this woman. I’m sorry if that’s not good enough, but she has suffered enough.

Perhaps I am overlooking something, but it would appear that the only way I can document this is to cite something that would lead anybody interested back to NAMES.

Yes, I am angry and passionate about this subject.
 
40.png
manualman:
Perhaps I am unclear. I am personally aware of one such case. There is no way in which I can substantiate it to your satisfaction without advertising to the world once again the humiliation of this woman. I’m sorry if that’s not good enough, but she has suffered enough.

Perhaps I am overlooking something, but it would appear that the only way I can document this is to cite something that would lead anybody interested back to NAMES.

Yes, I am angry and passionate about this subject.
Click to expand...
Excuse me but trials are public matters, and the records of trials are matters of public record. There is nothing to be gained by not citing this case – given that anyone can obtain the records!!
 
40.png
manualman:
Yes, I am angry and passionate about this subject.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t give you license to swear at me. Even f*ke swearing.
40.png
manualman:
Perhaps I am unclear. I am personally aware of one such case. There is no way in which I can substantiate it to your satisfaction without advertising to the world once again the humiliation of this woman. I’m sorry if that’s not good enough, but she has suffered enough.
Click to expand...
I am terribly sorry that something like this happened to someone you know and are obviously so close to. She is in my prayers.
40.png
manualman:
Perhaps I am overlooking something, but it would appear that the only way I can document this is to cite something that would lead anybody interested back to NAMES.
Click to expand...
Well, if it as big a problem as you seem to believe it is then there are surely other cases where this has happened. And I daresay that if it happened the local press would report it at some length. Why don’t you find one of those?

I have worked for a major metro newspaper in one of the top ten markets in the US for the past 6 years and have never heard of a single case where person committing a major violent felony has walked because of some procedural error on the part of the police.

Since I haven’t had that experience I see no burning need to change the current system. Especially as such changes would inevitably dilute the rights and protections of the accused (whether or not they were guilty).

You obviously, because of your personal experience, have a different perspective.

There’s an old legal saying that “hard cases make bad law” that I think applies here. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here.
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I tried doing a FindLaw search on “Miranda” to see how it worked. Here is one case where the conviction of a murderer was overturned because the police intentionally violated the defendant’s Miranda rights.
Click to expand...
But unanswered is the question, do we want a system where the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are routinely violated?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
I tried doing a FindLaw search on “Miranda” to see how it worked. Here is one case where the conviction of a murderer was overturned because the police intentionally violated the defendant’s Miranda rights.
Click to expand...
What the police did in this case was hardly a porcedural error. As SCOTUS pointed out in the decision, the police intentionally withheld a Miranda warning to induce the woman to confess. Despite all this, I wish we knew what the final disposition was (is?). I suspect the D.A. will retry the case with the evidence he has left.
 
vern humphrey:
But unanswered is the question, do we want a system where the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are routinely violated?
Click to expand...
I have no desire to live in a country that doesn’t offord me those rights.
 
40.png
wabrams:
I have no desire to live in a country that doesn’t offord me those rights.
Click to expand...
Nor I – the entire Bill of Rights is precious to us all.
 
40.png
BillP:
What the police did in this case was hardly a porcedural error.
Click to expand...
It seems to fit in with manualman’s definition of a procedural error, i.e., the defendant was clearly guilty despite the violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

Procedural errors by your definition are already handled under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
 
40.png
wabrams:
I have no desire to live in a country that doesn’t offord me those rights.
Click to expand...
This is a false dilemma, can’t you see that? You ASSUME that there is no way to improve the current system! The system I proposed above would place the consequences of violation on the policeman in question instead of on the victim (or their family). Enforcement would still lie in the judicial branch of government, where it does today.

How is this eroding anyone’s rights? It seems to me that the current system is preferred because it is easier to implement, not because it is more just. In other words, it is laziness, not justice primarily at work in this principle.

Bill, I apologize for phony cussing at you. It was a long time ago, and few she knows today have any knowledge of it. Best keep it that way. My own mental health is probably not best suited to spending hours researching other such cases, so I’ll just let it go.
 
40.png
manualman:
This is a false dilemma, can’t you see that? You ASSUME that there is no way to improve the current system! The system I proposed above would place the consequences of violation on the policeman in question instead of on the victim (or their family). Enforcement would still lie in the judicial branch of government, where it does today.
Click to expand...
That method has been tried before and it doesn’t work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top