I will be the first to say I don't know much about the law, or courtroom procedures, or any of that stuff beyond what I have seen in the news. But it seems to me that our system is broke. Hundreds (more?) of people are sitting in prison right now for crimes they didn't commit, and sometimes they can't even get appeals despite overwhelming evidence that exonerates them. Oftentimes these people are convicted in the first place based largely on race and/or lack of funds for a competent attorney. (There's a good documentary called After Innocence if you're curious about these statistics).

On the other side of the coin, there are probably thousands of people walking the streets today despite the fact they committed the crimes they are accused of. People get off on technicalities everyday, or because they have shifty lawyers, or for some other bullshit reason. Obviously this usually comes down to "due process" being followed, but are these courtroom games really what the founding fathers intended? I don't think so, and I think they would hold their heads in shame if they saw the state of the legal system today.

So I guess my question is, do you think the legal system is broke, and if so, what could we do to fix it?

PS: Yes, this post was spurred by the whole Anthony trial thing. I think it is sick that a woman who knows her daughter was dead/missing for a whole month, and who covered it up and lied about it (not to mention getting a tattoo celebrating it) deserves a whole lot more than a few years served in prison, regardless of whether she actually killed her or not. However, I think are problems go way beyond this trial - this is simply a catalyst for my post.

7/6/2011 11:37:22 AM

7/6/2011 11:43:34 AM

Quote :

"I think it is sick that a woman who knows her daughter was dead/missing for a whole month, and who covered it up and lied about it (not to mention getting a tattoo celebrating it) deserves a whole lot more than a few years served in prison, regardless of whether she actually killed her or not."

there's your problem. while I'd love to nail this bitch to the wall, the statement "I don't care if she actually killed her, I just want her punished" is part of the problem today. It's basically what prosecutors today say, and it perfectly sums up the mindset of ignorant jurors who convict on "feelings" as opposed to evidence. If the bitch didn't kill her daughter, then she doesn't deserve a prison sentence for murder. Much as I hate to say it, being a shitty, callous parent shouldn't be a punishable offense.

oh, and that bitch did it

7/6/2011 12:33:36 PM

I guess to rephrase, even if she actually didn't kill her daughter, the things that she did do and admit to (IMO) deserve a lot more than what she got.

I mean, she admitted she knew her daughter was dead and covered it up by lying to her family, friends, and the po-po for an entire month. That goes well beyond bad parenting. She's probably going to be walking the streets tomorrow, as free as you or I.

7/6/2011 1:06:28 PM

I know that when false searches occur (fake kidnappings, etc), groups can recoup lost money for the time and resources spent. I'd bet that's quite a bit in this case. Its not a guarantee, though, that the groups will take action.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 1:28:12 PM

Quote :

"I mean, she admitted she knew her daughter was dead and covered it up by lying to her family, friends, and the po-po for an entire month. That goes well beyond bad parenting. She's probably going to be walking the streets tomorrow, as free as you or I."

Isn't she getting like 4 years (minus 2.5 for time served) for lying to the cops?

And complain as much as you want but the people that failed were the prosecution (and investigators).

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2011 1:32:35 PM

The drowning story never went into evidence because she didn't take the stand. If she took the stand she would have gotten manslaughter neglect based on her story.

7/6/2011 2:18:37 PM

Quote :

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever. "

-John Adams (from http://www.daringfireball.com)

7/6/2011 2:52:17 PM

CHLOROFORM IN THE TRUNK. i mean, jesus

7/6/2011 3:11:41 PM

I think that our legal system has some weaknesses and flawed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's broken. As the quote above says, it was designed in favor of innocence even if it means letting some of the guilty get away with things. There are other issues such as tort reform, some of the shady military tribunal mess, and whatnot, but for the most part our system works.

I believe issues regarding public defendants are more flaws in the political system than the legal one. It is a failure of society as a whole in properly funding these activities.

7/6/2011 3:22:21 PM

I don't look at the military tribunal system as evidence that our system is broken. I look at it, rather, as something that arose because of the specific problems that foreign terror suspects present. They simply aren't in the same class of suits that our system was designed for. To say that a system is "broken" because it doesn't work in situations it was never designed for is the height of arrogance.

[Edited on July 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

7/6/2011 3:33:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't look at the military tribunal system as evidence that our system is broken. I look at it, rather, as something that arose because of the specific problems that foreign terror suspects present. They simply aren't in the same class of suits that our system was designed for. To say that a system is "broken" because it doesn't work in situations it was never designed for is the height of arrogance."

It actually arose because government agents wanted to be able to deliver swift justice without due process. Anyone that values liberty and justice should be vehemently opposed to military tribunals.

Our justice system is absolutely able to handle cases of terrorism. What's the difference between a foreign terrorist and Timothy McVeigh? Last time I checked, McVeigh was put to death, and I see no reason why foreign terrorists wouldn't get the same outcome. Don't take cues from Hannity and Limbaugh; giving terrorists a trial in a domestic court doesn't give them an opportunity to "mock" our system, as the pundits suggested. Quite the opposite: it gives the U.S. a moral high ground from which it can say, "Guess what? Our justice system works, no matter where you're from or who you are."

7/6/2011 4:30:14 PM

Quote :

"Our justice system is absolutely able to handle cases of terrorism. What's the difference between a foreign terrorist and Timothy McVeigh?"

you don't see a hint of a difference between a guy picked up in a foreign land, on a battlefield, attacking US troops, and a guy who committed his entire crime on US soil, against, essentially, civilians? You don't see even one minute difference between the two? because I sure as fuck do.

7/6/2011 4:32:06 PM

Quote :

"you don't see a hint of a difference between a guy picked up in a foreign land, on a battlefield, attacking US troops, and a guy who committed his entire crime on US soil, against, essentially, civilians? You don't see even one minute difference between the two? because I sure as fuck do."

I don't see a difference in the way that justice should be delivered, no. There obviously is a difference between the two situations, mainly that McVeigh confessed and there was plenty of evidence that he was the one that orchestrated the whole thing.

In the case of enemy combatants, it's a lot more blurry as to whether or not they were actually guilty of anything. There have been many instances of mistaken identity where someone was picked up by U.S. forces and held in captivity. Trying to skip steps and rush people through the justice system by using military tribunals is the wrong way to go.

7/6/2011 4:45:12 PM

Quote :

"I don't see a difference in the way that justice should be delivered, no."

so, a guy that shares a shit-ton of similarities with an actual enemy combatant is exactly the same as a common criminal. got it. I do agree that justice should be done in both cases, but surely you must see a difference between the two. What makes this situation murky is that the guy picked up on the battlefield wasn't fighting under the flag of a country.

7/6/2011 4:50:27 PM

Is someone that detonates a bomb and kills/injures hundreds of civilians a "common criminal"?

7/6/2011 4:54:06 PM

depending on the circumstances, yes. His target was wholly civilian. He fought under no flag or allegiance. The entirety of his crime was committed on US soil. He's a "common criminal" in the sense that his situation fits perfectly what our legal system was set up to address.

I'll also say that I don't like the tribunal system, either, as I think it ignores the difference between the "enemy combatants" and normal POWs

7/6/2011 4:56:35 PM

Quote :

"depending on the circumstances, yes. His target was wholly civilian. He fought under no flag or allegiance. The entirety of his crime was committed on US soil. He's a "common criminal" in the sense that his situation fits perfectly what our legal system was set up to address."

Just because you claim that our legal system wasn't meant to handle terrorism doesn't make it so.

7/6/2011 4:59:13 PM

i see no reason to think it was designed with that in mind. If it were, then our soldiers would be tried under it as well, as opposed to the UCMJ. Military actions are hard to look at with the lens of our legal system. Again, a guy, picked up on the battlefield, in another country, by soldiers, is uniquely different from a guy picked up on the streets, in America, by law enforcement officers. I don't think either system is the right one.

i mean, what are we supposed to do... take a guy that was picked up on the battlefield by non-police with little understanding of the legal process and put him in the courts. That, right there, is the precise reason why the criminal system in the US can't work. Are all troops now going to read Miranda rights? if a troop so much as looks at the guy the wrong way, the whole case gets thrown out. And we then... drop the guy back off on the battleground and say "hey, don't come back, k? promise us..."

The problem, of course and as you've already pointed out, is that there are people who have been picked up wrongly. There's got to be a system to work out who those people are, but the US legal system simply isn't it. But for the guy you pick up, on the battlefield, with a gun in his hands, shooting at US troops? What are you gonna do? Put him on trial? Put him in jail for 2 years and then what? Where in the fuck is the US legal jurisdiction in that case in the first place?

7/6/2011 8:10:49 PM

Quote :

"if a troop so much as looks at the guy the wrong way, the whole case gets thrown out"

Show me just ONE case of this happening amidst the hundreds of terrorists that have been prosecuted in our courts. Just one!

Also, it's funny that everyone unanimously agrees that the "War on Terror" is unlike any war we've seen before. There is no defined "battlefield" that you keep referring to. Many, if not MOST detainees at Guantanamo were not captured after firing on our troops. They were captured after intelligence (and as we have seen...much of this intelligence has been bad - where people took advantage of us by giving us random names/names of their enemies in exchange for protection/money) led us to them. Why are you trying to continue to wage this "war" like we have with all the rest when clearly this is an entirely different entity?

7/6/2011 8:46:18 PM

Quote :

"I guess to rephrase, even if she actually didn't kill her daughter, the things that she did do and admit to (IMO) deserve a lot more than what she got. I mean, she admitted she knew her daughter was dead and covered it up by lying to her family, friends, and the po-po for an entire month. That goes well beyond bad parenting. She's probably going to be walking the streets tomorrow, as free as you or I."

She was charged with murder. If she was not guilty of murder, then she should go free. If she's guilty of criminal neglect then charge her with that. You can't convict someone of a crime they're not charged with.

That's the crux of any defense: is the defendant guilty of this specific crime?

7/6/2011 10:10:50 PM

60% of the NC budget for the legal system goes to corrections
1% goes to crime prevention

that's not at all self-fulfilling....

7/6/2011 10:23:42 PM

Did 'CSI' effect sway Anthony jury?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/06/hoffmeister.anthony.jury/index.html

Interesting read, especially for anyone unfamiliar with the CSI Effect.

7/6/2011 10:23:45 PM

^^^There are such things as lesser included charges, but she was acquitted of them too...

7/6/2011 10:32:57 PM

Quote :

"Show me just ONE case of this happening amidst the hundreds of terrorists that have been prosecuted in our courts. Just one!"

considering that AFAIK troops haven't been involved in the terrorist cases in front of our courts, I'd say that's an absurd request.

7/7/2011 3:40:48 AM

Quote :

"She was charged with murder. If she was not guilty of murder, then she should go free. If she's guilty of criminal neglect then charge her with that. You can't convict someone of a crime they're not charged with. That's the crux of any defense: is the defendant guilty of this specific crime? "

This...is not how the legal system works. You can actually be charged with many crimes at once, and that's exactly what happened here. It's not, "Well, we can't prove you murdered her, so you're free! Forget about those other crimes you're charged with!"

Quote :

"60% of the NC budget for the legal system goes to corrections 1% goes to crime prevention that's not at all self-fulfilling...."

I wonder how much of that 60% is spent on drug offenders. It's absurd that we treat drug addiction as a crime rather than a health problem. It seems like any sensible person knows this to be the case these days, but as always, the political system lags behind the people.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2011 11:23:46 AM

Well, as a matter of fact, the legal system is broke, seeing as how it is part of the government, which is, as a whole, broke.

But I believe you meant broken, in which case, my answer remains the same.

7/7/2011 11:54:45 AM

There's problems with corrupt local judges & district attourneys. Also there's problems with the laws themselves (too many non-violent offenders are given jail time).

I don't think there's significant problems with the principles, structure or methodology of our justice system.

7/8/2011 10:39:07 AM