Is our justice system a hypocrisy?


Highball
#91
I live in the US and our system is definitely a tiered one. If you are a prominent politician and get caught they have a Congressional Hearing and you get whatever it is they mete out for justice. Look at Charlie Ranagel for example. He is a charlatan, crook, liar and a thief. He gets his hands slapped in front of his peers. If any working person in the US was ever accused of those crimes they'd be tried in a court of law and If found guilty would do some time behind bars. So I answer your question with a question. Is our system a farce?
 
Cannuck
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Depends a lot on the definition of "slimy". If I was to characterize them (and I'd have to know a hell of a lot more about them) I would likely err on the side of caution and say "shrewd" or "diligent".

Err on the side of caution? What if they are charged with a crime?
 
Taxx
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by HighballView Post

I live in the US and our system is definitely a tiered one. If you are a prominent politician and get caught they have a Congressional Hearing and you get whatever it is they mete out for justice. Look at Charlie Ranagel for example. He is a charlatan, crook, liar and a thief. He gets his hands slapped in front of his peers. If any working person in the US was ever accused of those crimes they'd be tried in a court of law and If found guilty would do some time behind bars. So I answer your question with a question. Is our system a farce?

The American system is just one of many. Some people would argue that it is a failure, some would say it's really good.

However, my opinion is that a mix of the American system and Canadian one would be best. Take the repeat offender ideas (ie, harsher punishments) and death penalty from the US and take most of everything else from the Canadian system.
 
YukonJack
+1
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

If you don't think divorce lawyers are slimy, just say so.

Any person that does his/her job with diligence, dedication and to the best of their ability and within the law deserves respect.

And that even included divorce lawyers.
 
JLM
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

Any person that does his/her job with diligence, dedication and to the best of their ability and within the law deserves respect.

And that even included divorce lawyers.

Yep, as long as justice and fairness is their goal, unfortunately there's a handful whose goal is stuffing their bank account.
 
petros
#96
Here is something for you to ponder on "justice". A guy who is running in the elections was found guilty of contempt but is still running albeit illegally.
 
mentalfloss
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, I have a bad habit of favouring the underdog/victim over the thug, I'll see if I can get some counsilling for that.

That's precisely the point.

You've already decided who the victim and the thug is before there has been proper settlement of the matter.
 
Avro
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That's precisely the point.

You've already decided who the victim and the thug is before there has been proper settlement of the matter.

That's JLM's world.....my guess is he still thinks Milgard and Morin are guilty because he thought so before the trials.
 
JLM
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

That's JLM's world.....my guess is he still thinks Milgard and Morin are guilty because he thought so before the trials.

You don't read too good- I never thought Millgaard was guilty at any time.
 
Cannuck
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I never thought Millgaard was guilty at any time.

Is that because he wasn't a cop?
 
Taxx
#101
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Is that because he wasn't a cop?

How does not being a cop have anything to do with it?
 
JLM
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by TaxxView Post

How does not being a cop have anything to do with it?

It doesn't unless you are an idiot!
 
Cannuck
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by TaxxView Post

How does not being a cop have anything to do with it?

JLM believes cops are guilty until proven innocent.
 
lone wolf
+1
#104
I believe cops are looked upon as examples. One screws up, it reflects on all of them.
 
JLM
#105
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

I believe cops are looked upon as examples. One screws up, it reflects on all of them.

Yep, cops do have to be held to a higher standard as that is what they are being paid for..............to uphold the law and set an example, once they've broken the trust, they are ineffective at their job.
 
Taxx
+1
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, cops do have to be held to a higher standard as that is what they are being paid for..............to uphold the law and set an example, once they've broken the trust, they are ineffective at their job.

Those are good points. I also agree that if you can't trust a cop they aren't doing their job.
 
gopher
#107
Can't speak for Canada but it's definitely the American way. Remember that infamous case where 4 black guys were accused and convicted of raping a stupid white woman who took up jogging at midnight in NYC's Central Park. All were innocent but the cops beat the **** out of them and forced them to confess to a crime they did not commit. Racist Rush Limbaugh said it was proof that black men are all out to rape white women and spent a week in his show talking that ****. When they were proven innocent when the real culprit confessed, Limbaugh never apologized. Nor were the crooked cops thrown in jail for their crimes against those innocent black men. As always, a black man is guilty until proven innocent. Where are the '' moral conservatives'' to demand that those cops spend the rest of their lives in jail????
 
CDNBear
#108
"Stupid white woman, who took up jogging at midnight"
 
petros
#109
She wasn't stupid?
 
SLM
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

She wasn't stupid?

Actually no, she's the victim of a particularly violent assault.
 
YukonJack
#111
gopher, you forgot about a black woman accusing three white Duke University students of rape?

The students were completely and totally exonerated, but none of the press apologized for calling them rapists. BTW, the woman is now charged with murder.
 
ironsides
#112
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.

This is a good answer to a good question:


"No, you are not guilty because you are in jail, you are the ACCUSED. That's enough to want to keep you locked up, but not enough to keep you for long. The basic law is innocent until proven guilty for the simple reason that the alternative would be much, much less fair.

Consider if you were assumed guilty until you could prove your innocence. Perry Mason always proved his client was innocent by proving someone else committed the crime. How often do you think that happens? And should it be necessary to be the one to correct the police's errors and find the guilty party? How would you go about it when there you are in jail, and everyone is entitled to assume you are guilty?

Also, the guilty assumption would put way, way too much power in the hands of the police. This way, they turn you over to the district attorney with what amounts to "We think this is the guy. You prove it or he will walk." This creates a division of responsibility between the police and the DA, which helps avoid some (but clearly not all) corruption. Then it puts your defense attorney on a theoretically even footing with the DA.

The whole idea is that it is better that the guilty go free once in awhile when the system fails to work properly than have the innocent locked up. On the whole, I like our system better than any conceivable alternative."
auntb93again: http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=AA10235908
 
gopher
#113
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

She wasn't stupid?

Central Park in those days had no lighting. It takes someone of great ''genius'' to go jogging at that time of night. Yes, she suffered. But so did those innocent black guys who spent 10 years in jail for a crime they did not commit. The mother of one of them died of grief and the cops should have gone to prison for that.

Quote: Originally Posted by YukonJackView Post

gopher, you forgot about a black woman accusing three white Duke University students of rape?

The students were completely and totally exonerated, but none of the press apologized for calling them rapists. BTW, the woman is now charged with murder.

I well remember that case. I also remember the Charles Stuart case in Boston where a white guy accuse a black of murder - the cops beat up an innocent black guy so badly that he confessed to that crime though he was innocent. I can also give you a bunch of references from the Innocence Project where 100s of innocent black men were falsely accused and convicted for crimes they did not commit.
 
EagleSmack
#114
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post


I well remember that case. I also remember the Charles Stuart case in Boston where a white guy accuse a black of murder - the cops beat up an innocent black guy so badly that he confessed to that crime though he was innocent. .


Ah Gopher... Willie Bennett never confessed to the crime nor was he beaten.

But why let facts get in the way of a good story huh.

FAIL
 
gopher
#115
The case took place 21 years ago and my memory is a little fuzzy. It was actually Derrick Jackson who was coerced into saying he did it:

Search for Pregnant Woman's Murderer Called a 'Witch Hunt' - Los Angeles Times

''Newspaper and television reports Saturday quoted Dereck Jackson, 17, whose affidavit was the foundation of the case against Bennett, as saying police coerced him into telling them that he heard Bennett confess to the shootings of Charles and Carol Stuart.''

Police were never charged with any crime for that coercion.
 
gopher
#116
... therefore, UNFAIL !

lol
 
oldrebel
+1
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Our justice system is based on the assumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. If that is really the case why do accuseds have to post bail or remain in jail awaiting trial? I say you can't have it both ways. As it's not reasonable or safe to allow the likes of Pickton, Bernardo etc. to remain on the street while awaiting trial, I think this "innocent until proven guilty" bullsh*t should be removed.

Suspects are held in custody when overwhelming probable icause is shown, and the crime is very serious.
If one could be arrested and held on an accusation alone, it would result in anyone who has a grudge against another person having them locked up. There has to be sufficient evidence to indicate guilt on the part of the accused. But they still have to be proven guilty before they can be convicted.
That sounds fair enough to me.
 
ironsides
#118
Anyone accused of murder or some other serious crime should be held until the trial or make bail if it is offered.. There is really no innocent till proven guilty until the trial. I wouldn't want it any other way either.
 
no new posts