Print

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

[Bohandas]

(of course this attitude is usually reversed for any sort of crime if the accused is a well-liked cultural icon or just rich)

On the upside this does place a limit on the racism of the system.

In the 1995 case of The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson it was ruled that the right of celebrities to bypass punishment for any and all felonies superceded the duty of the court to automatically convict all black defendants regardless of guilt or innocence. This ruling was later upheld in the 2005 case of The People of the State of California vs. Michael Joseph Jackson. The verdicts were not worded as such per se, but that was the effective overall jist of them.

[Bohandas]

I will stop to point out that, in a discussion where statistics are important and nuance is crucial to understanding a deeply complex issue, hyperbole like most apathetic in the world is unhelpful

That reminds me of a joke I heard a while back

A Statistical Department is hiring mathematicians. Three recent graduates are invited for an interview: one has a degree in pure mathematics, another one in applied math, and the third one obtained his B.Sc. in statistics.
All three are asked the same question: "What is one third plus two thirds?"
The pure mathematician: "It's one."
The applied mathematician takes out his pocket calculator, punches in the numbers, and replies: "It's 0.999999999."
The statistician: "What do you want it to be?"

[Helgoland]

Naah, you have to tell it with a mathematician, a physicist, and an economist.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Naah, you have to tell it with a mathematician, a physicist, and an economist.

If there's a question that's relevant to all three of those, I think I choose suicide.

[aenri]

No I mean ALL defense attorneys. None that are private. That's the only way anyone gets equal representation.

As it stands, you have cases such as where a billionaire raped his children, and they worked the sentence down to child rape, which inexplicably has no minimum sentence, and the judge gave him probation. (though personally I think the judge's palms were greased on that one, and she should have been put under investigation.)

That's one really ill-advised idea. I still fondly remember the times of glorious socialism, when the judge, prosecutor and attorney were on the same payroll. Noone would give a damn about accused. In worst case scenarios they all worked nicely together against him (or with him if he was some prominent guy).

[smeeprocket]

No I mean ALL defense attorneys. None that are private. That's the only way anyone gets equal representation.

As it stands, you have cases such as where a billionaire raped his children, and they worked the sentence down to child rape, which inexplicably has no minimum sentence, and the judge gave him probation. (though personally I think the judge's palms were greased on that one, and she should have been put under investigation.)

That's one really ill-advised idea. I still fondly remember the times of glorious socialism, when the judge, prosecutor and attorney were on the same payroll. Noone would give a damn about accused. In worst case scenarios they all worked nicely together against him (or with him if he was some prominent guy).

I feel like there's got to be a way around that.

Because the current system just favors the rich, and everyone else suffers. Remember, that is the system that the poor get now.

[aenri]

No I mean ALL defense attorneys. None that are private. That's the only way anyone gets equal representation.

As it stands, you have cases such as where a billionaire raped his children, and they worked the sentence down to child rape, which inexplicably has no minimum sentence, and the judge gave him probation. (though personally I think the judge's palms were greased on that one, and she should have been put under investigation.)

That's one really ill-advised idea. I still fondly remember the times of glorious socialism, when the judge, prosecutor and attorney were on the same payroll. Noone would give a damn about accused. In worst case scenarios they all worked nicely together against him (or with him if he was some prominent guy).

I feel like there's got to be a way around that.

Because the current system just favors the rich, and everyone else suffers. Remember, that is the system that the poor get now.

Public defender system you have right now is on the right track. Everyone should have an attorney and if you cannot pay for him, the state will. State-appointed attorney won't probably be as good as the one you pay for from your own and that is not really a problem. Good attorney costs a lot of money and state is here to provide you with minimal standard, not luxury ride.

[smeeprocket]

No I mean ALL defense attorneys. None that are private. That's the only way anyone gets equal representation.

As it stands, you have cases such as where a billionaire raped his children, and they worked the sentence down to child rape, which inexplicably has no minimum sentence, and the judge gave him probation. (though personally I think the judge's palms were greased on that one, and she should have been put under investigation.)

Frankly, the rich can burn, if it comes to that. All of them.
That's one really ill-advised idea. I still fondly remember the times of glorious socialism, when the judge, prosecutor and attorney were on the same payroll. Noone would give a damn about accused. In worst case scenarios they all worked nicely together against him (or with him if he was some prominent guy).

I feel like there's got to be a way around that.

Because the current system just favors the rich, and everyone else suffers. Remember, that is the system that the poor get now.

Public defender system you have right now is on the right track. Everyone should have an attorney and if you cannot pay for him, the state will. State-appointed attorney won't probably be as good as the one you pay for from your own and that is not really a problem. Good attorney costs a lot of money and state is here to provide you with minimal standard, not luxury ride.

Perhaps you don't understand the gravity of that statement.

The poor, by virtue of having less money, are not entitled to the "luxury" of a competent and invested defense attorney. The rich, by virtue of having more money, have "earned" the right to better justice.

Since when is having justice served a luxury? If I'm innocent, I have the right to someone who is capable and willing of defending me, lest I end up in jail or in old sparky.

What is happening now, and what apparently you think is a privilege of the rich, (and technically it is in our society, but it shouldn't be,) is that the poor, especially minorities, suffer increased conviction rates, longer stays in prison, higher likelihood of the death penalty.

You think being wealthy should earn you the "luxury" of not getting sent to the chair? Because I don't.

[XXSockXX]

Anyway... I expected my bit about the obstacles to positive change in America to be called out as overdramatic, as it has many times before... but it seems debating the level of horribleness of public transit was deemed a more interesting topic   I find this amusing.

I take that to mean that there is still hope for public transit in the US, so it's still worth debating. The other stuff...not so much apparently. 

You think being wealthy should earn you the "luxury" of not getting sent to the chair? Because I don't.

Well, even in socialist Europe, the state only provides you with the minimum standard, not the best of the best.

Making all defence attorneys (so virtually every lawyer) state-employed seems unrealistic as hell and quite a bad idea.
Rather get rid of elected judges, make prosecutors less powerful, get rid of jury trials. While you're at it, abolish common law and implement civil law.

[smeeprocket]

Anyway... I expected my bit about the obstacles to positive change in America to be called out as overdramatic, as it has many times before... but it seems debating the level of horribleness of public transit was deemed a more interesting topic   I find this amusing.

I take that to mean that there is still hope for public transit in the US, so it's still worth debating. The other stuff...not so much apparently. 

You think being wealthy should earn you the "luxury" of not getting sent to the chair? Because I don't.

Well, even in socialist Europe, the state only provides you with the minimum standard, not the best of the best.

Making all defence attorneys (so virtually every lawyer) state-employed seems unrealistic as hell and quite a bad idea.
Rather get rid of elected judges, make prosecutors more powerful, get rid of jury trials. While you're at it, abolish common law and implement civil law.

That sounds... terrible. What?

Who decides who gets to judge then? The powerful white guys in charge? With the gerrymandering and political jockeying that goes on in our govt?

And these judges, and judges aren't exactly progressive in any way or helpful to the process of justice, should decide a accused fate by themselves? When 12 people isn't working? If 12 people can't do a competent job, one appointed official isn't going to do it any better. That would just exacerbate the problem.

While making all defense attorneys public might cause problems for the rich, I think that's a good way to get things done. The rich hate it when they are punished or even inconvenienced. When we had a govt shutdown, they stopped passing out WIC checks, but you bet your ass they pushed temporary measure to keep air traffic controllers paid so they didn't have to take ground transportation. Give our elected officials and the wealthy the same legal representation as the poor and you've got yourself a problem on its way to being solved.

[XXSockXX]

Who decides who gets to judge then? The powerful white guys in charge? With the gerrymandering and political jockeying that goes on in our govt?

And these judges, and judges aren't exactly progressive in any way or helpful to the process of justice, should decide a accused fate by themselves? When 12 people isn't working? If 12 people can't do a competent job, one appointed official isn't going to do it any better. That would just exacerbate the problem.

1. In that post you quoted, I wrote "more powerful", when I meant "less". Important difference. I edited my post, but apparently too late.

2. Here judges have to apply for a job with the responsible authorities. If successful, they are life-long civil servants with a pension, no need to worry about re-elections or stuff like that, no need to worry about relationships with anyone, independent of politics, only bound by the law.

3. I don't believe in juries. I'd much rather be judged by a professional judge who is a law expert than by a bunch of my idiotic peers who can be convinced of anything.

[smeeprocket]

Who decides who gets to judge then? The powerful white guys in charge? With the gerrymandering and political jockeying that goes on in our govt?

And these judges, and judges aren't exactly progressive in any way or helpful to the process of justice, should decide a accused fate by themselves? When 12 people isn't working? If 12 people can't do a competent job, one appointed official isn't going to do it any better. That would just exacerbate the problem.

1. In that post you quoted, I wrote "more powerful", when I meant "less". Important difference. I edited my post, but apparently too late.

2. Here judges have to apply for a job with the responsible authorities. If successful, they are life-long civil servants with a pension, no need to worry about re-elections or stuff like that, no need to worry about relationships with anyone, independent of politics, only bound by the law.

3. I don't believe in juries. I'd much rather be judged by a professional judge who is a law expert than by a bunch of my idiotic peers who can be convinced of anything.

Instead of electing white dudes, they'd just be hiring white dudes, who would do the exact same things. I do not have the kind of faith in people that you have.

The only reason I think defense attorneys should all be public is because it's the only fair option (and possible also because I am unapologetically Marxist, but I tend to have a very menshevik pragmatism about the whole thing.) Plus, lighting a fire under the ass of the wealthy generally has more results.

[TamerVirus]

Would people rather be poor or wealthy?

Because I always hear that 'being rich' is something to look at with scorn rather than something to strive for

[smeeprocket]

Would people rather be poor or wealthy?

Because I always hear that 'being rich' is something to look at with scorn rather than something to strive for

It's not something you CAN strive for. If it was an obtainable goal for most people, assuming they were willing to put the work in, it would be great. Yadda yadda, American Dream. But that myth exists as a carrot on a stick that you can run your whole life for and you will never get.

Therefore, the only people who get rich are the already rich getting richer, who use their money to starve out the rest of us. And honestly, a lot of that money, if not inherited, was made on the backs of the poor and the working class anyway. To get rich, you have to break quite a few eggs on your way up to the top.

[XXSockXX]

I do not have the kind of faith in people that you have.

I have very very little faith in people, which is why I believe in codified law more than in juries (or for that matter powerful elected judges).