Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

'course, death penalty still being around and the occasional innocent being murdered by the state still not being the worst or least just aspect of th'American justice system doesn't leave me with much hope things'll get particular just in any meaningful sense any time soon.

Several millennium of social permutation and we still haven't figured out a moral way of dealing with the people we find to be too unsafe to allow normal social interaction. What's up with that? Are we going to need brain reconstruction before we get a workable solution that isn't a moral travesty?

[Starver]

Several millennium of social permutation and we still haven't figured out a moral way of dealing with the people we find to be too unsafe to allow normal social interaction. What's up with that? Are we going to need brain reconstruction before we get a workable solution that isn't a moral travesty?

The answer is obviously just to freeze them all.  (And if we freeze someone that we shouldn't have, well, we can always just thaw him out to combat his previously unfrozen arch-nemesis newly released upon the fragile pseudo-utopian futureworld, right?)

[Moghjubar]

We shall also teach them tradeskills while they are frozen, in order to give them a bright future as a cloth technician in an age ruled by robots and Taco Bell.

[kaijyuu]

brain reconstruction [...] a workable solution that isn't a moral travesty

What. General consensus from what I've heard is that brainwashing people into "good citizens" is a telltale sign that you're in a dystopia.



What's best is simple separation. This doesn't mean solitary confinement necessarily, but just keeping them physically unable form doing whatever it is they did. When technology is indistinguishable from magic in a thousand years or so, we'll have non-brainwashing methods to reintegrate people into society who can't be completely rehabilitated, I bet.

[penguinofhonor]

brain reconstruction [...] a workable solution that isn't a moral travesty

What. General consensus from what I've heard is that brainwashing people into "good citizens" is a telltale sign that you're in a dystopia.

A Clockwork Orange, very specifically.

[Frumple]

Yeah... simple separation isn't simple, especially if you're going to do it in a way that doesn't turn straight into a clusterfuck. American system in particular is a fine example of how to turn that principle into a rolling human rights violation, but there's plenty more. Then there's the ones that literal brain restructuring (either literally or through chemical regimes) is the only way they're going to be able to function in society without being a risk of undue harm.

But... yeah. Mostly it was just a microrant. I twig a little on the subject, but that's because I have an axiomatic base that holds that torturing a human is worse than killing one and neither can be just. With incarceration being a form of torture, life imprisonment becomes categorically worse than execution. Both achieve the same goal of permanent exclusion, but imprisonment causes much greater harm. Current penal system is pretty much uncorrectibly broken, yaddayadda.

The issue of fallible sentencing is difficult, though. Perhaps it is better to irrevocably scar a person than to accidentally kill them, because even a life mostly destroyed is better than one completely? Perhaps it is within society's power to mend minds, restore stolen years, and repair a destroyed life, I'unno. The topic makes me melancholy, because there's literally no good or just choice in the current situation. Just bad and unjust.

Incarceration cannot be justice, for the simple reason that there's neither reparation from or rehabilitation for the perpetrator involved, only exclusion -- if either occur, it's occurring in parallel, and often at odds with the incarceration itself. It's in the same area of moral act that killing is, just (sometimes) revokable and usually more harmful in net. It is difficult for me to look at an argument kindly that proposes incarnation as a just act. It solves no problems, it just shoves them behind a wall.

Perhaps most just, though, maybe. Especially in this goddamned country (US, notch), where basically no damn body outside a bloody small minority is even remotely interested in something approaching justice. It's all either retribution or exclusion, and all that is is either making it worse or making it someone else's problem. But hey, rehabilitation's happening a little! All it costs the person is a bit of torture and permanent reallocation to at-best second class citizenry. "Just." Ha.

I'unno, have headache now. And rambled and unstructured mess and probably should have just left it because I've mostly already said the same bloody things on this forum in the past but whatever. Screw it and go.

[Neonivek]

On the topic of the insanity defense; I would argue the point that habitual violent criminal behavior should be considered a sign of mental illness in and of itself. I'm all for treatment over punishment.

The insanity defense only works in the nature of the insanity prevented the person from respecting the nature of the crime. So you can be insane and still be found guilty of murder. Mind you they may not put you into a standard prison.

If it was because of my earlier rant, I'm sorry about that. Neoniveks post just struck me as being very defensive of the court's actions in this case

Because I really have to defend lawyers against this since they get a bad rep simple because ordinary people do not know what a lawyer actually does and this is one of those situations where you are assuming this lawyer has this powerful ability to manipulate the law. What do you think they can do?

1) The prosecution cannot withhold evidence. If evidence was withheld it was by a third party
2) The defense has the ability to appeal so they had years to mount the "Someone was already guilty" plea. Even if that doesn't work they can be let out of jail by the government (It is rarely used. Often it is done simply as a way out should there be overwhelming evidence of innocence and there are no more appeals)

Okay, perhaps I went overboard with calling him obviously innocent. It doesn't change the fact that the evidence was unfairly skewed against his favor, which I am blaming the prosecution for. Of course his innocence wasn't obvious in court. That's because important evidence was withheld from court.

So yeah. I hope people will finally get now why I'm blaming the prosecution for all this. They tampered with evidence, to skew the things against DeLunas favor.

And when did I ever make the impression of wanting to look hard-nosed?

The prosecution has no ability to tamper with the evidence and in fact they often have no part in the investigation.

Though perhaps I should read the article because tampering with police evidence is a rather impressive thing to do.

----

Read the entire article and I have to say. The Prosecution was 100% not at fault and they played no part in his guilt. There are two people you can attribute fault to

1) The incompetent or overtaxed defense.
and
2) The police and investigators

The Prosecution cannot tamper with the evidence. They cannot withhold evidence that was given to the police, that is highly illegal and easily checkable. There are several things the prosecution CAN do that is illegal to hurt someone but you havn't given a realistic one.

It really is a sensationalist article. For all I know this man was truely guilty. I mean all this evidence and incompetence and there was no appeal? You have to step back and take in the whole story instead of picking one element you didn't like and attacking it.

What did the prosecution do? Here is what he didn't
1) He didn't base the case on nothing because it got past pretrial
2) He didn't tamper with evidence because they do not have that ability. Nor does he have the ability to withhold police evidence.
3) He didn't use underhanded tactics in court to get evidence stricken out that should have been submitted because there was no appeal.

Here is how it is. He would have had a trail and several appeals if the evidence was there. There would have been several lawyers involved.

Edit addition: I just realised that I am basically explaining why a lot of law shows are inaccurate.

[Theoboldi]

Since I don't have much experience with the american justice system, I'll just assume you're right. My assumption that the prosecution had such a large part in collecting and presenting the evidence didn't actually come from any law shows, but rather from the fact that it actually does work like that where I live. <.<
Still, I won't believe one second that DeLuna was the real murderer. Heck, the real murderer even had admitted the crime, but was simply ignored. Just because this specific article is sensationalist doesn't change the fact that DeLuna was wrongfully killed.

[chaoticag]

Umm, Neonivek? This is the US system here, and while some jurisdictions have "guilty but insane" there still is the "Innocent by way of insanity" in others. Although you are not guilty though, it tends to be worse than being found guilty, as you pretty much spend a longer time in a psychiatric ward than you would in jail. There's also the temporary insanity defense, where you have to prove that you were suffering from an irresistible urge at the time of the crime, but are now sane.

[Starver]

...though it's neither of the situations so described, I suspect the situation described in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest isn't entirely unknown in real-life, either.

[mainiac]

The Prosecution cannot tamper with the evidence. They cannot withhold evidence that was given to the police, that is highly illegal and easily checkable.

Easily checkable how?  The defense attorney's use their third eye to scry for any evidence that was withheld?

This isn't exactly hard to find a counter example.  You need to go as far back as... the OP where the defense attorney didn't know that Carlos Hernandaz existed but having him in court would have no doubt resulted in an innocent verdict.

[Theoboldi]

The Prosecution cannot tamper with the evidence. They cannot withhold evidence that was given to the police, that is highly illegal and easily checkable.

Easily checkable how?  The defense attorney's use their third eye to scry for any evidence that was withheld?

This isn't exactly hard to find a counter example.  You need to go as far back as... the OP where the defense attorney didn't know that Carlos Hernandaz existed but having him in court would have no doubt resulted in an innocent verdict.

Exactly what I was saying the whole time. Evidence was withheld, and you need to stop saying that something like this wasn't possible. Because it happened.

I don't know whether it was the prosecution, or if I'm blaming the wrong people because I don't know who is responsible for presenting the charges and evidence in court in the US, but please don't argue that DeLuna could have done it. That's just being blindly ignorant at the sheer amount of evidence to the contrary.

[Sowelu]

My fiancee's whole family has an ethical belief:  "Better for me to die innocent than for ten guilty men to go free."

It may not seem just, when you apply it to others against their will...but that's what a social contract is: a large number of people saying "This is what we think is right", and applying it to the whole population because otherwise what rules do you have?  You can see it as a civic duty, to be willing to be self-sacrificing in those few rare cases.  Think of it like a draft for a necessary and just war.

Obviously it's not that simple...life imprisonment, the likelyhood or lack thereof of reoffending, etc etc.  But given the horrible false choice between "execute one innocent man and one serial murderer" and "let them both go free, and the serial murderer goes on to kill ten more people", there is at least kind of a point.

Also, expense.  If streamlined, maybe even at the cost of more innocent lives, the death penalty could be much cheaper in dollars than life imprisonment.  What's that?  I'm putting dollars before human lives?  What if those dollars pay for doctors, or feeding the starving, or schools in places that desperately need them, or rehabilitating the vast majority of criminals that can be rehabilitated--but otherwise won't.  Our society as it stands needs an assload of lawyers, but every brilliant hardworking lawyer that's occupied by the system is a theft from the world; they could have been something else.  (No offense meant, Truean.)


Devil's advocate, it's fun...

[mainiac]

Obviously it's not that simple...life imprisonment, the likelyhood or lack thereof of reoffending, etc etc.  But given the horrible false choice between "execute one innocent man and one serial murderer" and "let them both go free, and the serial murderer goes on to kill ten more people", there is at least kind of a point.

Except the serial killer wouldn't go on to kill 10 more people, that's just a complete ass pull.  I mean if there was the choice between murdering a sack full of puppies and global nuclear war I'd start killin' puppies.  That don't mean it's alright to kill puppies.

[scriver]

Also, expense.  If streamlined, maybe even at the cost of more innocent lives, the death penalty could be much cheaper in dollars than life imprisonment.  What's that?  I'm putting dollars before human lives?  What if those dollars pay for doctors, or feeding the starving, or schools in places that desperately need them, or rehabilitating the vast majority of criminals that can be rehabilitated--but otherwise won't.

Yup. It's totally a choice between that and more innocents being executed. That's why all countries with national healthcare, social security, better schools and better rehabilitation rate than the US execute a lot more people every year.

Oh wait.