| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2154 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | RangerDave [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety |
Scenario: Defendant is a member of a particularly violent gang, and he is accused of participating in multiple offenses ranging from drug trafficking to aggravated assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder. There's no doubt this guy is guilty, and it's extremely likely that he'll do it all again if he's released. Unfortunately, though, all of the key evidence against him was obtained via serious violations of Constitutional protections - searches and arrests without warrants, coerced confessions, etc. - and there's no way we can use any of it in court. First question: If the DA is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should? Second question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial? Third question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the detention of defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court? |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No No No |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes, yes, no. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Criminal Rights vs. Public Safety |
RangerDave wrote: Scenario: Defendant is an alleged member of a particularly violent gang, and he is accused of participating in multiple offenses ranging from drug trafficking to aggravated assault, kidnapping, rape, and murder. He's innocent until proven guilty. See above. I think you see where I'm going with this. Quote: First question: If the DA is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should? He should be working to prosecute the cops. The upstanding citizen should be released immediately. Quote: Second question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial? That's really frightening. Quote: Third question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the detention of defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court? That's even scarier. |
|
| Author: | Ladas [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Criminal Rights vs. Public Safety |
I know you are using the terms in a manner consistent with most people's understanding, but if he hasn't been convicted yet, he isn't a criminal, and none of the rights violations you listed could be considered "criminal" rights. They are general rights of the population, and despite the actions of a few, should be protected for the majority. Criminal rights would be those conferred to the convicted. |
|
| Author: | RangerDave [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Criminal Rights vs. Public Safety |
Good point, Ladas. Changed the thread title to be at least a little more accurate. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I can look at evidence and say "That ****'s guilty." Presumption of innocence only applies in the courts. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety |
The problem with the example is, as Arathain pointed out, we only "know" he's guilty because it's stipulated as a condition of the question. It's a prolem with the method of addressing the issue; how do we know that he's guilty? Well, because RD said so in framing the question. In real life, we'd "know" he was guilty from the evidence that's left undescribed in the question. We'd also know what these unconstitutional methods were, and he'd be entitled to a hearing to determine if they were, in fact, unconstitutional, but again, here, we only know that their unconstitutional by the fiat of the question posed. So, the answer is no, to all three. We don't want to, becaue it would merely encourage fabrication of evidence We don't need to because in real life it's rarely that hard to find sufficient evidence legally for violent crimes, and for nonviolent ones we can afford a lot more patience We don't need to because, as you said, he'll do it again and we can nail him legit the next time We don't need to because it's rarely that clear cut that evidence gathering was improper, and most of the time there's no question at all that it was proper. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Doesn't it matter if the member of the gang is protected by the Constitution? If it doesn't apply then it's irrelevant. http://www.uscourts.gov/outreach/topics ... trager.htm |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, Yes, No. Personally I hate people getting off on technicals.. you think the criminals will stop robbing you because he forgot to tie his shoes that morning... |
|
| Author: | Corolinth [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Those rights exist to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. As has been pointed out before, those are not "criminal's rights." Every citizen of the United States has them, and only a complete **** idiot would want them changed. Yeah, it sucks to let scumbags go because the prosecution didn't do their job properly. It would suck even more if we allowed fake evidence to convict people, and if we allowed improperly obtained evidence to be used then we may as well not even have illegal search & seizure laws to begin with. |
|
| Author: | Slythe [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety |
Can we like, insert random specific scenarios for greater effect? Quote: Scenario: O. J. Simpson is a particularly violent person, and he is accused of participating in multiple offenses ranging from assault to aggravated murder in the first degree. There's no doubt this guy is guilty, and it's extremely likely that he'll play golf til the end of time if he's released. Unfortunately, though, the reason he got off was because there was a baseless assumption that all of the key evidence against him was obtained via serious violations of Constitutional protections - First question: If the DA is able to cover up the violations and thereby obtain a conviction, do you think he should? Second question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial? Third question: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the detention of defendants we "know" are guilty and likely to re-offend, even if we can't prove it in court? Now answer the same three questions seriously. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety |
No No No |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
no no no The questions you ask RD are frightening to think of. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Heck No Heck No Heck No Do it right or let them go. |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial? See I have a problem with the degree of 'improper'... As it currently stands, scientific evidence could be discounted due to stupid mistakes. Take the oj thing for e.g. some of the blood DNA work was discounted due to the lack of gloves worn by the technician. This, if contaminated, would only point to the technician and not alter the result much (except with an additional result, the technicians). Or if someone confesses, signs a confession but is later allowed to recant it cause they werent read their miranda rights, I say tough luck. (like you haven't heard it enough in the movies) Considering the double jeopardy laws, some technicalities only hurt the legal system and not enhance it. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
No^3 |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lydiaa wrote: Quote: Do you think we should change our legal/Constitutional approach to allow the use of improperly-obtained evidence at trial? See I have a problem with the degree of 'improper'... As it currently stands, scientific evidence could be discounted due to stupid mistakes. Take the oj thing for e.g. some of the blood DNA work was discounted due to the lack of gloves worn by the technician. This, if contaminated, would only point to the technician and not alter the result much (except with an additional result, the technicians). Or if someone confesses, signs a confession but is later allowed to recant it cause they werent read their miranda rights, I say tough luck. (like you haven't heard it enough in the movies) Considering the double jeopardy laws, some technicalities only hurt the legal system and not enhance it. This. |
|
| Author: | Hopwin [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coerced confession could easily be taken to mean tortured into confessing which IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. Is there a way to make text blink? |
|
| Author: | Lydiaa [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
There is of course a difference between tortured confession and simply forgot a step in the procedure. If you could prove an officer forgot to read the miranda rights (either video or taped communication) you have a way of proving there was no torture... Would you say that in such a case, such technicalities aid the legal system? |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety |
Yes. Officers will "forget" a lot more frequently if that's acceptable. Reading the Miranda rights is easy, they're short and easy to memorize. Not giving them is just laziness and inattention to detail. That said, claiming you didn't get the miranda rights because they weren't read in the exact words you heard last night on Law and Order is not an excuse to toss charges out, especially if you didn't answer any questions anyhow (that's another common misconception. Miranda rights only pertain to evidence you might give. If you say nothing, are asked nothing, or if they don't need your confession or evidence anyhow, they're irrelevent. Driving Under Suspension is like this. I never read miranda; I didn't need to ask any questions. I saw you driving, your license is suspended. All done). Fortunately, the courts are already not in the habit of tossing out charges bcause the cops said "If you can't afford a lawyer, we'll get one for you" instead of "If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be provided for you." There's therefore no reason or need for any revision of procedure. |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Hopwin wrote: Coerced confession could easily be taken to mean tortured into confessing which IS WHY WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION. Is there a way to make text blink? Slippery Slope. |
|
| Author: | Slythe [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Defendants' Rights vs. Public Safety |
In a way, the reason most everyone answers most or all "no"s to the three questions posed here is the same reason why I oppose the death penalty, even if we "know" the monster is guilty. The difference of course is both the degree of both legally proven guilt and of the severity of punishment. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No, No, No Man, just wait a couple weeks, you're watching the guy, any one as low life as that is going to do something stupid. Hey, if its stupid enough, the other gang will take care of it for you. Kind of like this illegally taped partial conversation I was sent from an associate at the Flamingo. "Okay Darkseige, you know this Moose is guilty of crimes against the casinos, why come to us? The Flamingo is a law-abiding civic responsible casino. We don't have anything to do with anything mob-affiliated, those are just nasty rumors by jealous competitors, no truth to them at all. Besides, he wasn't even operating here. Just go talk to Joey at the DI, explain what you know, maybe how you know it. See if Joey is interested in passing this on up, I hear Newton's broke, maybe he can curry some favor with the Wynn or something, get a deal going if he okays Joey antler-capping that Moose character. Thanks for doing your civic duty, informing on the lowlife card-counter. We appreciate it. Here, show this down at the parlor, Frankie will make you a deal on the next inkstain, ok?" |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
No No No |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|