|
KenDckey -> RE: White House Forencis Report (9/4/2016 12:26:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
FR
Solving crimes doesn't pay. Locking up the innocent and letting the guilty free supports two big parts of the budget and supports those jobs.
If there was zero crime, how much of a police budget would you support ?
T^T
Utopia? We wouldn't need a police. Zero crime equates to Zero Cops. But I seriously doubt that will ever happen until we kill off the human race.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And about that, the way they investigate is a real hoot. They figure out who they think did it and build a case against that one person, ignoring evidence against any others and also ignoring any evidence that their prime suspect is innocent. They also withold this illegally when the defense attorney files for discovery.
Seems to keep them in business.
T^T
Short of investigating and conclusively proving the innocence of the hundreds of millions of people in the world, I would agree that focusing on suspects as they develop the case is the way the police do it. There are abuses, yes. I believe that there are abuses in just about everything. It isn't a pure world. We can only strive to improve it.
quote:
BamaD
What about the people who have been cleared by old DNA evidence? Doeasn't this bring their innocence into question?
I am not saying you can't or shouldn't go back and challenge cases. But to do it every time a scientific advancement is made, we will need somewhere like (my best guess) one judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, and on and on to live permanently in court.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
It is all in question. The just us system operates to keep the jails full. They do not care if you are innocent or guilty. A few years ago a juvenile court judge was convicted for taking a kickback for every kid he sent there. JUVENILE COURT. How many lives did he wreck ? He should have been executed because that is a violayion of trust. That is why China executed their "FDA" head for taking a bribe from a drug company and seven people died. Here they get a fucking bonus if only seven people die, or even if they do.
The judge who sold those kids to the DH, you would imagine being a judge he would have adequate legal counsel. And the guy in China, he was a PUBLIC OFFICIAL. I thought they could do no wrong, I thought they just rolled over people with steam rollers n shit. Burn their grass hut because they don''t support that particular commisar. Torture them, no trials at all. Is that what you heard ?
Well I heard something else. I would not move there but they painted a picture that is not how it is. If they were a little better at it you would think that in Russia they are all watching black and white tube TVs. Hey, they now probably have better than us. Those 2Ks n shit. At least of those who want them.
They have trials, but it is that procedure and its rules in question here. But so are ours. Canada has "in camera" which actually means exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. It means a secret trial. In the US they have gag orders which is pretty much the same thing.
In the US, the biggest power the judge has is to exclude evidence. If you want to beat that you need to get affidavits and file them with the clerk of courts but do it at the last minute. Bring the certified copies. Don't make them an exhibit until it is time. This is tricky shit but it can be done. Reading documents and disallowing them looks very bad to a jury.
All if this is dangerous because you antagonize the court. They want their power absolute. Try bringing up jury nullification. I'll tell you how to do it in a subtle way.
"You have the right to acquit the defendant if you feel he has not committed a crime, no matter what the statute says". No lawyer will do that.
Like for example they catch a guy with two nickel bags and charge him with trafficking, when he explains that this is how his guy sells it. The prosecutor generally has the decision to allow for lesser convictions or not. They have lost some notable cases by not allowing for lesser convictions. Don't allow the jury to convict of a misdemeanor instead of fucking this guy's life for a half ounce of pot ? Who would not vote to acquit ? If that is your only choice other than to fuck this guy's life all up, and he wass otherwise alright let's say, going to school, working, whatever. No record.
What would you do ?
T^T
Nice example of abuse of power. There are others. Doesn't mean the system is corrupt. Only those involved who themselves should be tried. Not the entire system. I personally don't like the concept of elected judges. Doesn't mean it proves corruption, but in my opinion it could improve the odds of corruption.
|
|
|
|
