How to solve courtroom injustice? - Page 6

Byrdie714 · 01-01-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

I have not presented myself as anything other than what I actually am. You however, are attempting to present yourself as something you quite obviously are not. If you have any knowledge of the law at all, you would realize that is known as fraud.

I could give you my credential, but I doubt you would be able to understand them.

And your eye for an eye quote refers to punishment for a deed done. The rest of the quote is, "But not a drop of blood shall ye shed." Yours is yet another example of innappropriate response based on a lack of comprehension.

Only one credential?

Try me.

BTW...it's inappropiate. One 'n', not two.

jillio · 01-01-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

I disagree.

On what grounds, counselor?

jillio · 01-01-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Only one credential?

Try me.

BTW...it's inappropiate. One 'n', not two.

Should I be impressed because you can use spell check? But I wouldn't go there if I were you. I don't think you want me to start pointing out all of yoru grammatical errors on top of all your falsehoods.

BTW, where did you get your JD? Do you know what a JD is, Byrdie?

Bear · 01-01-2008, 09:49 PM

for all the support everyone.

As for the justice system as a whole. It is seriously lacking in investigation of crimes by the police, the lawyers and the courts. In many cases, even today DNA evidence is either not gathered or is overlooked.

I do not see how it is possible to deny that many innocents do go to jail due to a number of factors. The factors I am going to list below should NEVER be a part of the justice system, these factors below are what cause an innocent to go to jail most of the time.

1. This is true in small towns especially. Lack of investigating accusations and the *crime* commited.

2. The good old boy mentality.

3. Convicting for political gain.

4. Lawyers not being motivated enough to give all to a defense.

5. Wanting to appear tough on crime, and gather as much money for the city as one can through guilty verdicts. Remember almost everyone has to pay fines on top of incarceration.

6. Race still matters alot today in the justice system.

7. How much you can afford to pay to keep yourself out of trouble.

NONE of these should ever be a factor within our justice system. If these were taken out of play in our justice system, you would see a much lower conviction rate of innocents.

As human beings with compassion, I believe it is our job to try to do our best to find a way to keep those factors out of our justice system. It is also our job to believe in innocence both before and after verdicts are handed down.

Are we all so jaded, that we are just willing to believe that once that person is found guilty, then it must be so? without a doubt? Can we not believe that our justice system may and does make mistakes?

Are we all just so willing to believe that EVERY single mother who says their child is innocent is just unwilling to admit that their children did wrong? Or can we admit that maybe the parents know them best?

In adult court, the same holds true. Is it so impossible for us to believe that when someone says Im innocent, that it just may be true?

Why is it also that when the system does fail, that the system is not upheld and investigated? Why do we not care, unless it affects us personally?

Irregardless of what someone else posted, I do not believe that my son was INCAPABLE of doing wrong. I DO NOT believe he was INCAPABLE of hurting another person. I DO believe that based upon the evidence in his case, and all the circumstances SURROUNDING his case, supports that he is INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE.

As for helping my son accept *responsibility* for his actions. I have been doing that for these last 4 years thank you very much! Again DO NOT presume to know me or my son or what I have been doing. For four whole years, I have encouraged him to participate actively in his counseling program. I have encouraged him to do everthing he was asked to do. I have encouraged him to find peace and forgiveness for the system and for himself.

I have encouraged him every single DAY to take responsibility for the things he HAS done whatever they may be! SO DONT go TELLING me what I NEED to do, when you dont know jack shit!

Thank you very much!

Banjo · 01-01-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Only one credential?

Try me.

BTW...it's inappropiate. One 'n', not two.

Inappropriate

Bear · 01-01-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Inappropriate

Tousi · 01-01-2008, 10:25 PM

Calvin · 01-01-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Inappropriate

jillio · 01-01-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear

for all the support everyone.

As for the justice system as a whole. It is seriously lacking in investigation of crimes by the police, the lawyers and the courts. In many cases, even today DNA evidence is either not gathered or is overlooked.

I do not see how it is possible to deny that many innocents do go to jail due to a number of factors. The factors I am going to list below should NEVER be a part of the justice system, these factors below are what cause an innocent to go to jail most of the time.

1. This is true in small towns especially. Lack of investigating accusations and the *crime* commited.

2. The good old boy mentality.

3. Convicting for political gain.

4. Lawyers not being motivated enough to give all to a defense.

5. Wanting to appear tough on crime, and gather as much money for the city as one can through guilty verdicts. Remember almost everyone has to pay fines on top of incarceration.

6. Race still matters alot today in the justice system.

7. How much you can afford to pay to keep yourself out of trouble.

NONE of these should ever be a factor within our justice system. If these were taken out of play in our justice system, you would see a much lower conviction rate of innocents.

As human beings with compassion, I believe it is our job to try to do our best to find a way to keep those factors out of our justice system. It is also our job to believe in innocence both before and after verdicts are handed down.

Are we all so jaded, that we are just willing to believe that once that person is found guilty, then it must be so? without a doubt? Can we not believe that our justice system may and does make mistakes?

Are we all just so willing to believe that EVERY single mother who says their child is innocent is just unwilling to admit that their children did wrong? Or can we admit that maybe the parents know them best?

In adult court, the same holds true. Is it so impossible for us to believe that when someone says Im innocent, that it just may be true?

Why is it also that when the system does fail, that the system is not upheld and investigated? Why do we not care, unless it affects us personally?

Irregardless of what someone else posted, I do not believe that my son was INCAPABLE of doing wrong. I DO NOT believe he was INCAPABLE of hurting another person. I DO believe that based upon the evidence in his case, and all the circumstances SURROUNDING his case, supports that he is INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE.

As for helping my son accept *responsibility* for his actions. I have been doing that for these last 4 years thank you very much! Again DO NOT presume to know me or my son or what I have been doing. For four whole years, I have encouraged him to participate actively in his counseling program. I have encouraged him to do everthing he was asked to do. I have encouraged him to find peace and forgiveness for the system and for himself.

I have encouraged him every single DAY to take responsibility for the things he HAS done whatever they may be! SO DONT go TELLING me what I NEED to do, when you dont know jack shit!

Thank you very much!

jillio · 01-01-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Banjo

Inappropriate

Angel · 01-02-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

We are only hearing one side of the story. A mother who is trying to solicit sympathy for her son's cause. What if he really did commit the crime and she is in denial? Many mothers do think their children are wonderful human beings that can't do no harm when in fact, they did.

What about the State's version? Or are you picking and choosing what you want to believe?

Oh...that's right, you are part of the "bleeding heart liberals" that want to release every sexual felon onto our society.

I seek the truth, but do you? how can you say that she is looking for sympathy?

There was no physical evidence,
There was no investigation
There was no rape kit

and since you claim that you were once a lawyer, then you should know that prosecutors don’t like trials because they are time consuming and a lot of work and going to trial is no guarantee that an innocent person will be found "not guilty" .. Unfortunately our justice system does have many flaws, it sends innocent people to jail and worse, puts them to death believe it or not, I don't care Byrdie.

And no I'm not part of the "bleeding heart liberals" I'm the kind of person that does not want to see innocent kids behind bars!!

Cousin Vinny · 01-02-2008, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

The fact of the matter is, you don't got the money, you don't got legal representation unless it is through a public defender. And we all know the effectiveness of public defenders. That is simply an effort to comply with the right to legal counsel....it is a joke.

I disagree with your contention that public defenders, by large, are a joke. I am well mindful of the fact that within any given profession, there's bound to be a couple of bad apple's, lazy people, incompetent personnel, etc.

But most public defenders are well staffed, well trained, and take their jobs with vigor and seriousness. Heck, our Miami-Dade Public Defender has been elected to his office for the 8th consecutive term.

Granted, not every jurisdiction has the luxury of having a well-staffed PD office. If you're arrested in hilly-billy country, then you might run into trouble with the local PD office. But even then, there usually is an experienced attorney or two running the show.

Unfortunately, most PD's, I suspect, are overwhelmed with the sheer amount of cases running through their departments. According to the Miami Dade Public Defender website, roughly 200 attorneys handle a 100,000-strong caseload, or roughly 500 per attorney. I don't know if that's too much, but at a glance, it does certainly seem so. Fatigue could certainly affect the PD's performance if they're overwhelmed, no matter how good they are.

Cousin Vinny · 01-02-2008, 10:32 AM

Here's some ideas which I could think off-hand (pun intended!), that could work within our U.S. criminal jurisprudence; (Disclaimer; I am an attorney.

But, I have never practiced law, much less doing any criminal law work.)

Focus penalities on rehabilitation than exacting punishment. i.e., instead of imposing a 1-year jail sentence, impose a 1-year probation with required counseling. Many jurisdictions already do this, for numerous lesser offenses, and especially for first-time offenders. Just recently, SCOTUS allowed more (lenient or stringent) judicial discretion when it comes to federal sentencing guidelines.

Abolish the death penalty. Not only do the states save money prosecuting such cases, it also ends nearly all discussions about whether innocent people are being executed. Also, it keeps in line with criminal jurisprudence that heinous people should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives, for their capital crimes so that they may not re-offend, instead of focusing on revenge.

Surprisingly, the right to an attorney is not guaranteed for indigent people; numerous states will not provide you with a public defender for misdemeanor cases that do not involve incarceration. Perhaps this doctrine should be expanded to involve all misdemeanor cases, regardless of whether incarceration is a possibility or not? This way, it'll free up PD resources in defending felonious cases.

Thanks to the advent of shows like CSI, more and more juries are now more demanding when it comes to proof in felonious criminal trials, even marginalizing or disregarding strong circumstantial evidence. I don't know if that's a good thing, though. A lot of cases are won or lost based on circumstantial evidence, as hard, solid, evidence as popularized by shows like CSI are pretty much scarce.

Abolish the Patriot Act. Oops, that's the liberal in me talking... Nevermind! Seriously, police powers need to be restored among established constitutional jurisprudence, when it comes to wiretapping, search & seizures, questioning, etc. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with heightened police powers that are being unchecked. Hopefully a balance can be struck, to allow much needed and legitimate police investigation, against constitutional freedoms and interests afforded to every U.S. citizens.

Just off the top of my head signing away!

Lastly, the criminal judicial system here in the U.S. is undoubtedly the envy of the world. But since people run it, it is not immune to infallibilities and imperfections inherent in the human race. It is to the testament of our judiciary that it functions so well despite these imperfections that crop up here and there.

webexplorer · 01-02-2008, 05:47 PM

"Hopefully a balance can be struck, to allow much needed and legitimate police investigation, against constitutional freedoms and interests afforded to every U.S. citizens."

Please rephrase your sentence.

jillio · 01-02-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

I disagree with your contention that public defenders, by large, are a joke. I am well mindful of the fact that within any given profession, there's bound to be a couple of bad apple's, lazy people, incompetent personnel, etc.

But most public defenders are well staffed, well trained, and take their jobs with vigor and seriousness. Heck, our Miami-Dade Public Defender has been elected to his office for the 8th consecutive term.

Granted, not every jurisdiction has the luxury of having a well-staffed PD office. If you're arrested in hilly-billy country, then you might run into trouble with the local PD office. But even then, there usually is an experienced attorney or two running the show.

Unfortunately, most PD's, I suspect, are overwhelmed with the sheer amount of cases running through their departments. According to the Miami Dade Public Defender website, roughly 200 attorneys handle a 100,000-strong caseload, or roughly 500 per attorney. I don't know if that's too much, but at a glance, it does certainly seem so. Fatigue could certainly affect the PD's performance if they're overwhelmed, no matter how good they are.

That is exactly what I was talking about. Not the competence of the lawyers themselves, but rather the ineffectiveness of the system. The inefficiency of the system is what contributes to the ineffectiveness of the public defender as opposed to a high priced private criminal defense attorney. And budget has a huge role to play in that.

jillio · 01-02-2008, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cousin Vinny

Here's some ideas which I could think off-hand (pun intended!), that could work within our U.S. criminal jurisprudence; (Disclaimer; I am an attorney.

But, I have never practiced law, much less doing any criminal law work.)

Focus penalities on rehabilitation than exacting punishment. i.e., instead of imposing a 1-year jail sentence, impose a 1-year probation with required counseling. Many jurisdictions already do this, for numerous lesser offenses, and especially for first-time offenders. Just recently, SCOTUS allowed more (lenient or stringent) judicial discretion when it comes to federal sentencing guidelines.

Abolish the death penalty. Not only do the states save money prosecuting such cases, it also ends nearly all discussions about whether innocent people are being executed. Also, it keeps in line with criminal jurisprudence that heinous people should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives, for their capital crimes so that they may not re-offend, instead of focusing on revenge.

Surprisingly, the right to an attorney is not guaranteed for indigent people; numerous states will not provide you with a public defender for misdemeanor cases that do not involve incarceration. Perhaps this doctrine should be expanded to involve all misdemeanor cases, regardless of whether incarceration is a possibility or not? This way, it'll free up PD resources in defending felonious cases.

Thanks to the advent of shows like CSI, more and more juries are now more demanding when it comes to proof in felonious criminal trials, even marginalizing or disregarding strong circumstantial evidence. I don't know if that's a good thing, though. A lot of cases are won or lost based on circumstantial evidence, as hard, solid, evidence as popularized by shows like CSI are pretty much scarce.

Abolish the Patriot Act. Oops, that's the liberal in me talking... Nevermind! Seriously, police powers need to be restored among established constitutional jurisprudence, when it comes to wiretapping, search & seizures, questioning, etc. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with heightened police powers that are being unchecked. Hopefully a balance can be struck, to allow much needed and legitimate police investigation, against constitutional freedoms and interests afforded to every U.S. citizens.

Just off the top of my head signing away!

Lastly, the criminal judicial system here in the U.S. is undoubtedly the envy of the world. But since people run it, it is not immune to infallibilities and imperfections inherent in the human race. It is to the testament of our judiciary that it functions so well despite these imperfections that crop up here and there.

Excellent suggestions.

Chase · 01-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Good eye, Webexplorer. "Hopefully" is an adverb modifying "can be struck," when the writer obviously means "I hope." Then the sentence contradicts its own intents. Careful readers are confused. Worse, it's not the only ambiguous line.

This isn't a personal attack, Cousin Vinny, because I read honesty and sincerety in the piece. But I have to wonder if the wandering wordiness I see is an occupational hazard with those writing for the law.

I recently completed editing (as the member of a team of independent editors) the policies of a law enforcement agency given a poor state review for how its procedures were written. The agency had a backlog of complaints due to officers again and again interpreting different meanings in policies approved (if not written by) lawyers paid by the county.

I see this as part of lower echelon legal systems throwing constitutional rights of individuals out the window.

Cousin Vinny · 01-02-2008, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chase

This isn't a personal attack, Cousin Vinny, because I read honesty and sincerety in the piece. But I have to wonder if the wandering wordiness I see is an occupational hazard with those writing for the law.

Liebling:-))) · 01-07-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secretblend
I would agree that 210 is too much, but I wonder how many other than 210 tested was actually correct?

Is it 210 out of 500?
or out of 1000? or more?

if the total is low, then that's a bad sign for the justice systems. However if the total is very high for example, 210 out of 5000, then that's not as bad. That would indicate that the justice system however imperfect it is is doing it's best to be acurate as possible. Like I said earlier, as long as human is involved, mistakes will be made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

D.O.J. has stated that there is 2 million people in the prison system.

210 out of 2 million.....

Can you image when you are one of 10, 100 or 210 out of 5,000 or 2 million who are being accused for commit the crime when you didn't and then sentence you to life or death penalty?

Never, never use the count how many they send wrong person to jail or death penatly.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/executg.htm This is very scary...

Byrdie,
I read most of your posts here and must say that I am total surprised that you defend justice system than offer your help to clients. I thought you would offer your share of knowledge as lawyer to know the rights how to help Bear's son...

Normally, the lawyers are on clients' side.

Liebling:-))) · 01-07-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angel

Bear is a "she", yes she did ask for advices in another thread but I guess you were too busy supporting the system.

Yeah, I can see that from my and Reba's thread here...

Liebling:-))) · 01-07-2008, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

Do you think your son appreciates his story being told on-line? Did you ask him if it was okay?

You was there to make several posts in my thread and must have known from Bear's posts that her son agrees to have his story out to ADers at few months ago.

Liebling:-))) · 01-07-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

The reason why I asked her if her son knew that she was posting on here was because from a male perspective, if I was her son, I wouldn't want my business posted on-line for millions to read.

I would allow my parents to publicize my case to the world to prove my innocent to against justice system... I would SCREAM to the world that I am INNOCENT....

If I am really guilty then I would hide myself from the world and forbid my parents to publicize me to the world.

Bear & her son have my 110% support...

Liebling:-))) · 01-07-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

He's already flunked the AD lie detector!

01-01-2008, 09:49 PM	#154 (permalink)
Bear Out Of Hibernation Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,026	for all the support everyone. As for the justice system as a whole. It is seriously lacking in investigation of crimes by the police, the lawyers and the courts. In many cases, even today DNA evidence is either not gathered or is overlooked. I do not see how it is possible to deny that many innocents do go to jail due to a number of factors. The factors I am going to list below should NEVER be a part of the justice system, these factors below are what cause an innocent to go to jail most of the time. 1. This is true in small towns especially. Lack of investigating accusations and the crime commited. 2. The good old boy mentality. 3. Convicting for political gain. 4. Lawyers not being motivated enough to give all to a defense. 5. Wanting to appear tough on crime, and gather as much money for the city as one can through guilty verdicts. Remember almost everyone has to pay fines on top of incarceration. 6. Race still matters alot today in the justice system. 7. How much you can afford to pay to keep yourself out of trouble. NONE of these should ever be a factor within our justice system. If these were taken out of play in our justice system, you would see a much lower conviction rate of innocents. As human beings with compassion, I believe it is our job to try to do our best to find a way to keep those factors out of our justice system. It is also our job to believe in innocence both before and after verdicts are handed down. Are we all so jaded, that we are just willing to believe that once that person is found guilty, then it must be so? without a doubt? Can we not believe that our justice system may and does make mistakes? Are we all just so willing to believe that EVERY single mother who says their child is innocent is just unwilling to admit that their children did wrong? Or can we admit that maybe the parents know them best? In adult court, the same holds true. Is it so impossible for us to believe that when someone says Im innocent, that it just may be true? Why is it also that when the system does fail, that the system is not upheld and investigated? Why do we not care, unless it affects us personally? Irregardless of what someone else posted, I do not believe that my son was INCAPABLE of doing wrong. I DO NOT believe he was INCAPABLE of hurting another person. I DO believe that based upon the evidence in his case, and all the circumstances SURROUNDING his case, supports that he is INNOCENT OF THIS CHARGE. As for helping my son accept responsibility for his actions. I have been doing that for these last 4 years thank you very much! Again DO NOT presume to know me or my son or what I have been doing. For four whole years, I have encouraged him to participate actively in his counseling program. I have encouraged him to do everthing he was asked to do. I have encouraged him to find peace and forgiveness for the system and for himself. I have encouraged him every single DAY to take responsibility for the things he HAS done whatever they may be! SO DONT go TELLING me what I NEED to do, when you dont know jack shit! Thank you very much! __________________ http://bears-city.myminicity.com/

01-02-2008, 06:43 PM	#167 (permalink)
Chase Premium Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,316	Part of the problem? Good eye, Webexplorer. "Hopefully" is an adverb modifying "can be struck," when the writer obviously means "I hope." Then the sentence contradicts its own intents. Careful readers are confused. Worse, it's not the only ambiguous line. This isn't a personal attack, Cousin Vinny, because I read honesty and sincerety in the piece. But I have to wonder if the wandering wordiness I see is an occupational hazard with those writing for the law. I recently completed editing (as the member of a team of independent editors) the policies of a law enforcement agency given a poor state review for how its procedures were written. The agency had a backlog of complaints due to officers again and again interpreting different meanings in policies approved (if not written by) lawyers paid by the county. I see this as part of lower echelon legal systems throwing constitutional rights of individuals out the window.

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

01-01-2008, 10:25 PM	#157 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,552

01-02-2008, 10:32 AM	#163 (permalink)
Cousin Vinny Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 682	Here's some ideas which I could think off-hand (pun intended!), that could work within our U.S. criminal jurisprudence; (Disclaimer; I am an attorney. But, I have never practiced law, much less doing any criminal law work.) Focus penalities on rehabilitation than exacting punishment. i.e., instead of imposing a 1-year jail sentence, impose a 1-year probation with required counseling. Many jurisdictions already do this, for numerous lesser offenses, and especially for first-time offenders. Just recently, SCOTUS allowed more (lenient or stringent) judicial discretion when it comes to federal sentencing guidelines. Abolish the death penalty. Not only do the states save money prosecuting such cases, it also ends nearly all discussions about whether innocent people are being executed. Also, it keeps in line with criminal jurisprudence that heinous people should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives, for their capital crimes so that they may not re-offend, instead of focusing on revenge. Surprisingly, the right to an attorney is not guaranteed for indigent people; numerous states will not provide you with a public defender for misdemeanor cases that do not involve incarceration. Perhaps this doctrine should be expanded to involve all misdemeanor cases, regardless of whether incarceration is a possibility or not? This way, it'll free up PD resources in defending felonious cases. Thanks to the advent of shows like CSI, more and more juries are now more demanding when it comes to proof in felonious criminal trials, even marginalizing or disregarding strong circumstantial evidence. I don't know if that's a good thing, though. A lot of cases are won or lost based on circumstantial evidence, as hard, solid, evidence as popularized by shows like CSI are pretty much scarce. Abolish the Patriot Act. Oops, that's the liberal in me talking... Nevermind! Seriously, police powers need to be restored among established constitutional jurisprudence, when it comes to wiretapping, search & seizures, questioning, etc. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with heightened police powers that are being unchecked. Hopefully a balance can be struck, to allow much needed and legitimate police investigation, against constitutional freedoms and interests afforded to every U.S. citizens. Just off the top of my head signing away! Lastly, the criminal judicial system here in the U.S. is undoubtedly the envy of the world. But since people run it, it is not immune to infallibilities and imperfections inherent in the human race. It is to the testament of our judiciary that it functions so well despite these imperfections that crop up here and there.

01-02-2008, 05:47 PM	#164 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,366	"Hopefully a balance can be struck, to allow much needed and legitimate police investigation, against constitutional freedoms and interests afforded to every U.S. citizens." Please rephrase your sentence.

01-07-2008, 07:57 AM	#174 (permalink)
Liebling:-))) Hiiiiiii it's meeeeee Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 25,702