Does our justice system deliver justice

Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
VIBC said:
I don't for a moment believe that the present structure of our justice system was inevitable. It's the result of choices & decisions about how it should be set up. Human mistakes may be inevitable but the form of a deliberately created societal institution is not.
Click to expand...
It depends how you look at it. Every branch is intertwined. Judges will even take into account the cost to the system; the availability of space in prison, etc. Their decisions impact the entire system. It's a system that is not without limitations, and it doesn't just operate based on philosophy or ideology. Every cog in the wheel is part of the bigger picture, including resources.
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
I have much trouble with the notion that if you can't discover the objective truth about a crime, you're protecting the public by imprisoning someone anyway, who may not be the perpetrator (and thereby exonerating someone who may be the real criminal.)

You would no doubt like to think you're protecting the public but you could be doing exactly the opposite.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
VIBC said:
I have much trouble with the notion that if you can't discover the objective truth about a crime, you're protecting the public by imprisoning someone anyway, who may not be the perpetrator (and thereby exonerating someone who may be the real criminal.)
You would no doubt like to think you're protecting the public but you could be doing exactly the opposite.
Click to expand...
It is not intentional to do so and it is disturbing. It's going to happen, though as "truth" is sometimes elusive.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
VIBC said:
I think that's right - there are cases where there is obvious guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Whether punishment/revenge does any good I don't know. There seems to be evidence that fear of punishment is not much of a deterrent. Locking up & throwing away the key may make sense. It's expensive but maybe worth the cost.
Should we use the death penalty when guilt of horrible crime is unquestionable - who would want/get to throw the switch? Maybe those most affected by the crime should get to do the deed if death is what they advocate?
And as a society do we really, really believe that life is really, really sacred?
Click to expand...
There are times when the death penelty is appropriate. Paul Bernardo comes to mind. Anyone killing a police officer, The guy in Victoria that killed his kids to get even with his ex. A few others. There is no reason why taxpayers should have to foot the bill to keep these kinds alive.
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
But this is a digression from my original question, which is why we have an adversarial contest in court rather than a flat-out unpolarised search for truth?


How would lawyers get rich on that?
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
Curious Cdn said:
It is not intentional to do so and it is disturbing. It's going to happen, though as "truth" is sometimes elusive.
Click to expand...

I think that sidesteps my basic question: Why would we convict someone if we don't know for sure that we have the absolute truth (apart that is, for our own desire for revenge, or to feel we've accomplished something.) Why shouldn't there be room for a "we don't know" verdict? I know that judges can dismiss a case or maybe overrule a jury but that's not the same and is seldom used. This would be more like a jury's decision to make.

I think in Britain there used to be a "not proven" verdict. Why not?
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
taxslave said:
There are times when the death penelty is appropriate. Paul Bernardo comes to mind. Anyone killing a police officer, The guy in Victoria that killed his kids to get even with his ex. A few others. There is no reason why taxpayers should have to foot the bill to keep these kinds alive.
Click to expand...

I know that you and plenty of others consider the death penalty appropriate in some cases, but that is your/their assessment and doesn't make it a fact; opinions differ.

It is not correct to say there is no reason why "taxpayers" - we're ALL taxpayers - should pay to 'keep these kind alive.' The reason is that the government elected by the taxpayers has decided the matter on their behalf, and as far as I know the majority of the electorate agrees with them that we should avoid using the death penalty.

I understand and respect your feelings & opinion on the matter, TS, but others don't have to share them.
 
MHz

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Make trials a subscription service that allows people to leave comments on any trial they wish to follow, in real time. Allow the Judge to see all the comments.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
VIBC said:
I think that sidesteps my basic question: Why would we convict someone if we don't know for sure that we have the absolute truth (apart that is, for our own desire for revenge, or to feel we've accomplished something.) Why shouldn't there be room for a "we don't know" verdict? I know that judges can dismiss a case or maybe overrule a jury but that's not the same and is seldom used. This would be more like a jury's decision to make.
I think in Britain there used to be a "not proven" verdict. Why not?
Click to expand...
No, you shouldn't convict innocent people.

Now, it would be helpful if everyone told the absolute truth so that guilt or innocence are a guarantee. Maybe, since Santa Claus has a list ...
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
Curious Cdn said:
No, you shouldn't convict innocent people.
Now, it would be helpful if everyone told the absolute truth so that guilt or innocence are a guarantee. Maybe, since Santa Claus has a list ...
Click to expand...

Of course you shouldn't convict innocent people and you know very well, CC, that it's not what I'm suggesting.

I guess it suits you to pretend I'm saying something else so that you can disagree. That's pointless and not intelligent. Sneering about The Count of Monte Christo or Santa Clause isn't, either.

My question was and is whether it's "right" to convict someone if you don't know for certain that they're guilty. Don't bother repeating that it's difficult to know for certain. That should go without saying but apparently it's about all you can say.

I'm done with this unless somebody shows up with more sensible comments.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
VIBC said:
Of course you shouldn't convict innocent people and you know very well, CC, that it's not what I'm suggesting.
I guess it suits you to pretend I'm saying something else so that you can disagree. That's pointless and not intelligent. Sneering about The Count of Monte Christo or Santa Clause isn't, either.
My question was and is whether it's "right" to convict someone if you don't know for certain that they're guilty. Don't bother repeating that it's difficult to know for certain. That should go without saying but apparently it's about all you can say.
I'm done with this unless somebody shows up with more sensible comments.
Click to expand...
Oh, well. Technically you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
VIBC said:
Of course you shouldn't convict innocent people and you know very well, CC, that it's not what I'm suggesting.

I guess it suits you to pretend I'm saying something else so that you can disagree. That's pointless and not intelligent. Sneering about The Count of Monte Christo or Santa Clause isn't, either.

My question was and is whether it's "right" to convict someone if you don't know for certain that they're guilty. Don't bother repeating that it's difficult to know for certain. That should go without saying but apparently it's about all you can say.

I'm done with this unless somebody shows up with more sensible comments.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be changed? If someone is murdered and there's only a mile long list of circumstantial evidence that there should never should be a conviction?
 
V

VIBC

Electoral Member
Mar 3, 2019
673
0
16
"Are you suggesting "beyond a reasonable doubt" should be changed? If someone is murdered and there's only a mile long list of circumstantial evidence that there should never should be a conviction?"

I'm suggesting it's worth thinking about (and I haven't said never convict). I don't see a problem with considering the idea that if you can't be absolutely certain, maybe you shouldn't imprison somebody, potentially ruining their life and that of their family. I'm suggesting it's not unreasonable to think about that.
 
Danbones

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
Having been convicted at one time till the forensic report arrived AFTER the trial exonerating me and exposing a couple of STUPID crooked small town cops, prosecutors, and lawyers, I can tell you our legal system sucks dik majorly.

Of course kreskin is for convicting on NO evidence and without proof, he is a confirmed trumphater.

Say, how's the russian collusion scam playing out these days kreskin ?
I see hitlery's emails and cover up docs are out at Judicial Watch doood!
;)
It isn't just the EVIDENCE of the crime that they get you on, it's the EVIDENCE of the cover up.

COVER-UP! Smoking Gun Documents on #ClintonEmailScandal
422 pages.

Not to mention just look at U.N.true doh! I see he won't commit to a court date re Scheer's accusations about his and his office's criminality.
 
Last edited:
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Danbones said:
Having been convicted at one time till the forensic report arrived AFTER the trial exonerating me and exposing a couple of STUPID crooked small town cops, prosecutors, and lawyers, I can tell you our legal system sucks dik majorly.
Of course kreskin is for convicting on NO evidence and without proof, he is a confirmed trumphater.
Say, how's the russian collusion scam playing out these days kreskin ?
I see hitlery's emails and cover up docs are out at Judicial Watch doood!
;)
It isn't just the EVIDENCE of the crime that they get you on, it's the EVIDENCE of the cover up.
COVER-UP! Smoking Gun Documents on #ClintonEmailScandal
422 pages.
Not to mention just look at U.N.true doh! I see he won't commit to a court date re Scheer's accusations about his and his office's criminality.
Click to expand...
Don't you have a Mexican caravan of rapist drug dealers to tend to, dummy?
 
taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
VIBC said:
I know that you and plenty of others consider the death penalty appropriate in some cases, but that is your/their assessment and doesn't make it a fact; opinions differ.
It is not correct to say there is no reason why "taxpayers" - we're ALL taxpayers - should pay to 'keep these kind alive.' The reason is that the government elected by the taxpayers has decided the matter on their behalf, and as far as I know the majority of the electorate agrees with them that we should avoid using the death penalty.
I understand and respect your feelings & opinion on the matter, TS, but others don't have to share them.
Click to expand...
True they don't have to share my opinions but at the same time I should not have to finance their opinions. So if the do gooders want to keep vile beings like Bernardo and Pickton alive they should pay the bill for jail, not the rest of us.
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
taxslave said:
True they don't have to share my opinions but at the same time I should not have to finance their opinions. So if the do gooders want to keep vile beings like Bernardo and Pickton alive they should pay the bill for jail, not the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Even if the death penalty costs more? 25 years of lawyering could feed several lives of prisoners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom