I'm no lawyer so I can't rattle off a list of these things. Patient/Client confidentiality stopping someone from giving testimony. The smallest breach rendering evidence inadmissible. It's bullshit. Just because the persons rights were violated or whatever doesn't make the evidence go away or make them innocent.
Fussing over a grain of sand when there's a whole beach in front of you never solved any problem.
I meant, an example from the show. 😛
I'm assuming you watched an episode where a criminal was let-off due to some technicality.
But yes I'm aware of the technicalites you're talking about- especially due process.
When I was interning at a police academy a couple years back to get my guard card, my instructor told us a story about a guy who got off due to a technicality- the lesson was supposed to explain to us the importance of due process.
Basically, a farm-owner hired some Mexican to do odd jobs around his house. After a couple of weeks the farm-owner found the Mexican passed out drunk on his farm, so he fired the dude. The Mexican threatened to beat the shit out of the farmer, so the farmer took an axe and crushed the Mexican's skull. He panicked after that, dumped the Mexican's corpse into the Ford F-150 he owned, and pushed the truck off a cliff a couple miles away from where the farm.
Police found the body, did an investigation, and charged the farm owner with 1st degree murder. At one point in their investigation, they took him in for questioning and secretly filmed the session, during which he admitted to murdering the Mexican and trying to hide the body.
The police submitted the video as evidence, and the Judge ended up throwing the case out because the police had neglected to tell the farmer that they were filming him prior to the questioning. So the guy walked.
One could argue that that's bullshit- the guy admitted on tape to killing the Mexican, and his bloody fingerprints were found on the axe. On the other hand, though, how does the jury and the judge know that the police didn't put a gun to the guy's head and force him to incriminate himself on the tape? They certainly could have done so- it's happened many times in history before- so if that evidence was used to convict the guy, the Judge could quite possibly be sentencing an innocent man who was coerced into incriminating himself.
That's the point of due process- basically. It's to cut off any attempts to force someone into incriminating themselves.
Ironically, most of our legal system is a knee-jerk reaction to tyrannically countries like Imperialist Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the like. We as a people are in general just highly paranoid about Government corruption, which is interesting, because our government sucks.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I meant, an example from the show. 😛I'm assuming you watched an episode where a criminal was let-off due to some technicality.
Ah. Well, the thing that really pissed me off was when a judge threw out a persons test results for AIDS because it was a 'breach of privacy'. The guy knew he had AIDS and was sleeping with as many women as he could to take as many of them with him when he went. So obviously its imperative to get him off the streets and keep him there. Theres absolutely no difference between him and a serial killer. But the results were needed to prove that he knew he had AIDS and was sleeping with them knowing he'd be killing them, proving criminal intent. How ****ing stupid is that? The guy goes free to potentially kill many more women to save his goddamn privacy?
They got him in the end, but holy shit.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
When I was interning at a police academy a couple years back to get my guard card, my instructor told us a story about a guy who got off due to a technicality- the lesson was supposed to explain to us the importance of due process.Basically, a farm-owner hired some Mexican to do odd jobs around his house. After a couple of weeks the farm-owner found the Mexican passed out drunk on his farm, so he fired the dude. The Mexican threatened to beat the shit out of the farmer, so the farmer took an axe and crushed the Mexican's skull. He panicked after that, dumped the Mexican's corpse into the Ford F-150 he owned, and pushed the truck off a cliff a couple miles away from where the farm.
Police found the body, did an investigation, and charged the farm owner with 1st degree murder. At one point in their investigation, they took him in for questioning and secretly filmed the session, during which he admitted to murdering the Mexican and trying to hide the body.
The police submitted the video as evidence, and the Judge ended up throwing the case out because the police had neglected to tell the farmer that they were filming him prior to the questioning. So the guy walked.
One could argue that that's bullshit- the guy admitted on tape to killing the Mexican, and his bloody fingerprints were found on the axe. On the other hand, though, how does the jury and the judge know that the police didn't put a gun to the guy's head and force him to incriminate himself on the tape? They certainly could have done so- it's happened many times in history before- so if that evidence was used to convict the guy, the Judge could quite possibly be sentencing an innocent man who was coerced into incriminating himself.
That's the point of due process- basically. It's to cut off any attempts to force someone into incriminating themselves.
Ironically, most of our legal system is a knee-jerk reaction to tyrannically countries like Imperialist Great Britain, the Soviet Union and the like. We as a people are in general just highly paranoid about Government corruption.
I'm not talking about forging evidence. I just think they should have better access to the actual evidence and not be forced to ignore it if 'due process' is violated.
Plus if the guys bloody fingerprints were on the axe, then I don't think you can fake that. Just analyse when the blood was put it there and whether its the victims.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Suspicion toward the government is a good thing. Keeps 'em from getting complacent. And call me an absolutist, but I'm never in favor of violating rights or waiving due process, no matter how certain the guilt of the accused.
You'd feel differently if you were murdered by a man who would have been in jail if not for a technicality. Or your mother was. I'm always an advocate in preserving life over silly little rights.
As a Judge, or a member of the jury, how do you know whether the evidence being presented to you is forged or not?
The case from the show you explained sounds weird to me. If I were the judge, I would have thrown that evidence out as well- not because it's a violation of the man's privacy, but, rather, because it's irrelevant. Having AIDS isn't a crime- having sex with someone while having AIDS isn't a crime. So if the defendant testified under oath that he does not have AIDS, proving that he has AIDS proves that he lied under oath. That's it, though. It doesn't have any relevance beyond that.
That'd be a tough case for the prosecution. They would have to first prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was having sex with these women with the specific intention of killing them. After that, they would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the women weren't informed prior to intercourse that he had AIDS. Realistically, if the prosecution couldn't prove both of those tenants, the guy will end up walking.
You'd feel differently if you were murdered by a man who would have been in jail if not for a technicality. Or your mother was. I'm always an advocate in preserving life over silly little rights.
What if ignoring those rights that you deem silly ends up convicting a man who's innocent? If he gets executed for committing a crime he didn't commit, you therefore have failed to preserve life, no?
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
As a Judge, or a member of the jury, how do you know whether the evidence being presented to you is forged or not?The case from the show you explained sounds weird to me. If I were the judge, I would have thrown that evidence out as well- not because it's a violation of the man's privacy, but, rather, because it's irrelevant. Having AIDS isn't a crime- having sex with someone while having AIDS isn't a crime. So if the defendant testified under oath that he does not have AIDS, proving that he has AIDS proves that he lied under oath. That's it, though. It doesn't have any relevance beyond that.
That'd be a tough case for the prosecution. They would have to first prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was having sex with these women with the specific intention of killing them. After that, they would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the women weren't informed prior to intercourse that he had AIDS. Realistically, if the prosecution couldn't prove both of those tenants, the guy will end up walking.
What if ignoring those rights that you deem silly ends up convicting a man who's innocent? If he gets executed for committing a crime he didn't commit, you therefore have failed to preserve life, no?
Sure, but technically, having sex with someone while having AIDS is not "deliberately transmitting HIV". So again, the prosecution would have to prove that the guy had intercourse with the explicit intention of transmitting HIV.
One might argue "...how can you have aids and have sex and not assume that you're giving your partner HIV", to which I would point to condoms.
Even if you prove that no condoms were used, which would implicate an intention to transmit the disease, the defendant could very easily just claim that he'd forgotten to put the condom on in the heat of the moment, or he couldn't afford one so he intended on pulling out, or something, at which point the charge could get lowered from murder to manslaughter, the latter of which has a maximum sentence (in Cali anyway) of like 2 years.
Manslaughter would be a much easier charge to prove than murder, because intent in this situation is a ***** to prove. And you need intent for murder charges.
Originally posted by NephthysOf course I would. But how the victim feels should not infringe with the rule of law. Emotions shouldn't dictate whether someone is allowed their rights. I have no moral problem with "little evil for a greater good", but when it becomes an accepted and expected part of the judicial process, then we have got a big f*cking problem.
You'd feel differently if you were murdered by a man who would have been in jail if not for a technicality. Or your mother was. I'm always an advocate in preserving life over silly little rights.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
As a Judge, or a member of the jury, how do you know whether the evidence being presented to you is forged or not?
So we're going to throw out evidence just because the possibility exists that its forged? That possibility exists in all evidence. But that doesn't matter. Innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is something indicating that the evidence was forged then we cannot just ignore it.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The case from the show you explained sounds weird to me. If I were the judge, I would have thrown that evidence out as well- not because it's a violation of the man's privacy, but, rather, because it's irrelevant. Having AIDS isn't a crime- having sex with someone while having AIDS isn't a crime. So if the defendant testified under oath that he does not have AIDS, proving that he has AIDS proves that he lied under oath. That's it, though. It doesn't have any relevance beyond that.
What the shit? How is intentionally infecting someone with a deadly disease not a crime? Having AIDS isn't a crime, no. But having unprotected sex while fully aware that you have it is flat out attempted murder. Manslaughter at worst.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
That'd be a tough case for the prosecution. They would have to first prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was having sex with these women with the specific intention of killing them. After that, they would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the women weren't informed prior to intercourse that he had AIDS. Realistically, if the prosecution couldn't prove both of those tenants, the guy will end up walking.
They had a girl who he'd infected who he had bragged to her face about infecting, saying that 'I'm taking as many of you with me as I can'. He was arrested with a girl about to initiate unprotected sex. The fact is, if he knew that he had AIDS and continued to initiate unprotected sex then he must be held accountable for the death he causes.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Sure, but technically, having sex with someone while having AIDS is not "deliberately transmitting HIV". So again, the prosecution would have to prove that the guy had intercourse with the explicit intention of transmitting HIV.
At the HIV clinic 4 girls who contracted AIDS listed him as a sexual partner. He was found with a girl about to have sex without a condom. All they need is proof that he knew that he had AIDS prior to those times. If he knew and still infected them then that shows criminal intent.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
One might argue "...how can you have aids and have sex and not assume that you're giving your partner HIV", to which I would point to condoms.
He was found with a girl saying 'I don't use condoms, its better bareback.'
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Manslaughter would be a much easier charge to prove than murder, because intent in this situation is a ***** to prove. And you need intent for murder charges.
Which is why the prosecution needed his test results to prove that he knew he had AIDS and still initiated unprotected sex, proving intent. Also, they were eventually forced down to Manslaughter.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
What if ignoring those rights that you deem silly ends up convicting a man who's innocent? If he gets executed for committing a crime he didn't commit, you therefore have failed to preserve life, no?
I don't see how that possibility is any greater than it would be in the current system.
Originally posted by steveholt245
The whole argument of "we MAY kill an innocent person so the death penalty should be abolished" has been debunked time and time again. We may as well say "we may jail an innocent person so the prison system should be abolished."
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
As far as I'm concerned all Pedophiles and Rapists should be put to death.Most these Pedo's are released a few years on, and they're still God damn dangerous sickos!
Edit- I'm talking about proper pedo's not those guys who end up sleeping with a girl whose just short of the legal age.
Um, not "time and time again." There was the prisoner in TX just recently whose case was denied a review, despite new genetic testing procedures. More to the point, our justice system is comprised of human beings, who are imperfect rationalists at the best of times. The idea that nobody innocent will ever be convicted is ludicrous. And given that someone is going to be wrongfully convicted, it is safer and more moral to choose a punishment that is not irrevocable. From an engineering standpoint, the option that cannot be undone should only ever be a last resort.
The idea that an irreversible penalty should be abolished just on the off chance of taking an innocent life, is ridiculous in my opinion. What is the historical % of this happening? Less than 1%? And if you're going with this logic, then the prison system should be abolished on the off chance that an innocent person is put in jail and murdered in jail.
The idea that an irreversible penalty should be abolished just on the off chance of burning a woman who isn't actually a witch, is ridiculous in my opinion. What is the historical % of this happening? Less than 1%?
In seriousness, I'd draw a line at being the agency to impose the permanent solution. Our prison systems are imperfect, and raging cesspools of violence are of course dangerous. However, we are not permanently ending the potentially innocent (just unduly endangering them).
Originally posted by NephthysYes. That is the point of due process. That possibility is always present for any evidence, but due process lowers that possibility considerably.
So we're going to throw out evidence just because the possibility exists that its forged?
What the shit? How is intentionally infecting someone with a deadly disease not a crime? Having AIDS isn't a crime, no. But having unprotected sex while fully aware that you have it is flat out attempted murder. Manslaughter at worst.You're not listening to what I'm saying. Unless the defendant claimed to not have AIDS, proving that he has AIDS does not, by itself, achieve anything.
You're description below makes sense, though. Also makes sense that it got lowered down to manslaughter. It's unfortunate that manslaughter is a laughable sentence.
I don't see how that possibility is any greater than it would be in the current system.Get arrested in a 3rd world country. You'll figure it out real quick. lol
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Yes. That is the point of due process. That possibility is always present for any evidence, but due process lowers that possibility considerably.
I'd love to see some basis in fact for that statement.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You're not listening to what I'm saying. Unless the defendant claimed to not have AIDS, proving that he has AIDS does not, by itself, achieve anything.
The charge is that he intentionally infected girls with AIDS. Theres no way to do that if you can't establish that he knew he had AIDS, hence why they needed to prove that he had received those test results. Otherwise he can argue that he was unaware he was giving it to them
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
You're description below makes sense, though. Also makes sense that it got lowered down to manslaughter. It's unfortunate that manslaughter is a laughable sentence.
Well he got 3-9 years, enough to keep him off the streets until the AIDS got him.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Get arrested in a 3rd world country. You'll figure it out real quick. lol
We don't live in 3rd world countries. We have methods of finding and verifying evidence that they do not. Theres not much comparison.
Here's a new one: A doctor poisoned a quadriplegic, goes for the mercy-killing defence. Evidence of numerous murders under his care which would be used to establish motive (that he's a plain old serial killer) is suppressed because they're deemed irrelevent to his mercy-killing. Literally because he showed no mercy to the other people he murdered, he's not allowed to be punished for it.
Originally posted by NephthysYou want me to... prove, that due process makes it harder for police to fabricate evidence?
I'd love to see some basis in fact for that statement.
The charge is that he intentionally infected girls with AIDS. Theres no way to do that if you can't establish that he knew he had AIDS, hence why they needed to prove that he had received those test results. Otherwise he can argue that he was unaware he was giving it to themI see.
Well he got 3-9 years, enough to keep him off the streets until the AIDS got him.Prisoners in America have better health care than us normal people, lol. He has a better chance of surviving AIDS in there then he does out here.
3-9 years is surprising to me, though. In California, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is 2 years. Granted, laws differ from state to state, but the disparity is still interesting.
We don't live in 3rd world countries. We have methods of finding and verifying evidence that they do not. Theres not much comparison.Um. No. Third world countries have the same technology to investigate crime that we do. They just don't always use it, because they're corrupt. There aren't laws that require them to examine each piece of evidence thoroughly. lol @ claiming that China is too poor to have forensics and law classes that we offer in our High Schools, though.
Here's a new one: A doctor poisoned a quadriplegic, goes for the mercy-killing defence. Evidence of numerous murders under his care which would be used to establish motive (that he's a plain old serial killer) is suppressed because they're deemed irrelevant to his mercy-killing. Literally because he showed no mercy to the other people he murdered, he's not allowed to be punished for it. [/B]That doesn't have anything to do with due process or abusing one's rights. That wouldn't fly as evidence because it's the equivalent of a non-sequtier. 2+2=4 does not mean that 4x2=8.
To use an example, if a teenager has a history of burning down houses in 2010, and he's charged with burning down a house in 2012, that he burned down a house in 2010 does not in any way, shape or form prove or even imply that he burned down the house in 2012.