How to solve courtroom injustice?

[Angel]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Cousin Vinny]

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:-)))]

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.

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:-)))]

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:-)))]

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:-)))]

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:-)))]

He's already flunked the AD lie detector!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

First of all, don't go around making assumptions because it makes you look stupid. These questions were asked when her son took a lie dectectors test and he passed, and it shows he is telling the truth but it cant be used in court because a lie dectectors test is inadmissable in court, why don't you go and review her son's case and see for yourself and yet you say you were a lawyer and is this how you treat your clients?

Yes, I am wondering the same. I would not want to waste my money to hire lawyer like Byrdie714 who defend justice system against me as his client because it's ME who pay him to defend ME, not justice system. No wonder why he put his clients off and become was a lawyer.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Oh jeez!

How can a "guilty" person be set free when the judge and the jury find the "guilty" person, "not guilty?" It's obvious that the DA did not do the job correctly in prosecuting the said defendent.

It's time for you to come out of the classroom and into the court room to see what is going on. Once you understand what happens on a daily basis in the court room and behind the scenes, you will get a better understanding of the court system instead of making assumptions on a few sensationalize cases.

I would be happy to show you around....

How Accurate Are Juries?
The Numbers Guy : How Accurate Are Juries?

I would recommend you to rent DVD "Guilty Until Proven Innocent". It's true movie. Bobby Mclaughlin would of dead because Justice System beleives false withness and listen jurors. He's lucky that there' no death penatly law in his area.

I personally disagree to have jury duties in court. We don't have Jury duties in many European countries including Germany.

They judges are assisted by their colleagues. The Judge’s assistance is search/informed about all legal aspects of a case. Example they collect the case from prosecutor and lawyer to help the judge’s decision, not jury's decision.

That's why I prefer to leave judge with his/her colleagues alone with their decision after collect prosecutor and lawyer, police etc. It's neutral, professional job task, not rely on citizens for their decision because some jurors are not mature enough to judge either guilty or not guilty, that's how end to send innoncent people to life sentence or death penatly. They are being brainwashed by good or bad lawyer, proescutor, medias, etc...

I noticed that lawyers/proescutor "bullies" to convince jury's decision... That's why I don't support it.

 

[Cousin Vinny]

I personally disagree to have jury duties in court. We don't have Jury duties in many European countries including Germany.

Gotta disagree with you on that point. Jury duty by laypeople allows transparency throughout the judical system. Jury duty should be a proud and civic duty a U.S. citizen can ever undertake.

Yes, I know juries aren't perfect; they make mistakes. In rare cases, they may even intentionally 'nullify' cases. They may incorrectly apply burden of proof, misjudge evidentiary weight, rely too much on hearsay, adhere to internal prejudices, etc. in many cases. However, here in the U.S., parties can waive their right to a jury trial. There's also the voir dire process that lawyers can use in molding a suitable jury.

 

[Bear]

Gotta disagree with you on that point. Jury duty by laypeople allows transparency throughout the judical system. Jury duty should be a proud and civic duty a U.S. citizen can ever undertake.

Yes, I know juries aren't perfect; they make mistakes. In rare cases, they may even intentionally 'nullify' cases. They may incorrectly apply burden of proof, misjudge evidentiary weight, rely too much on hearsay, adhere to internal prejudices, etc. in many cases. However, here in the U.S., parties can waive their right to a jury trial. There's also the voir dire process that lawyers can use in molding a suitable jury.

You sound like a lawyer : which by the way I know you already stated that you were a NON practicing one, I just meant you at least sound like you know what you are talking about.

 

[Bear]

There has been many suggestions here on how to solve courtroom injustice. But how do we go about getting these changes done?

I think that is the most important question to be asked? Many has suggested that I take my son's story to the media. I am really thinking about it as they are talking about keeping him even longer now. They are saying another 3-6 months for him now.

How do I go about doing this? I am so new to trying to fight a system that has gone bad in my eyes, that I dont even know where to begin.

I think posting some suggestions here about how to fight the system and how to go about changing it, might help!

I am willing to take the inniative *spelling?* but would need a lot of help doing it. One person cant do it alone!

 

[Buffalo]

There has been many suggestions here on how to solve courtroom injustice. But how do we go about getting these changes done?

I think that is the most important question to be asked? Many has suggested that I take my son's story to the media. I am really thinking about it as they are talking about keeping him even longer now. They are saying another 3-6 months for him now.

How do I go about doing this? I am so new to trying to fight a system that has gone bad in my eyes, that I dont even know where to begin.

I think posting some suggestions here about how to fight the system and how to go about changing it, might help!

I am willing to take the inniative *spelling?* but would need a lot of help doing it. One person cant do it alone!

Because he hasn't asked specifically.

Byrdie, now she is asking for some advice. Now here's your chance to help her out.

 

[Buffalo]

There has been many suggestions here on how to solve courtroom injustice. But how do we go about getting these changes done?

I think that is the most important question to be asked? Many has suggested that I take my son's story to the media. I am really thinking about it as they are talking about keeping him even longer now. They are saying another 3-6 months for him now.

How do I go about doing this? I am so new to trying to fight a system that has gone bad in my eyes, that I dont even know where to begin.

I think posting some suggestions here about how to fight the system and how to go about changing it, might help!

I am willing to take the inniative *spelling?* but would need a lot of help doing it. One person cant do it alone!

I am not asking for what was the reason for keeping him longer but I want to know: Did they give you the reason why they want to keep him longer? No need to post the reason as it is too personal. Who decided on this? The Judge?