Does our justice system deliver justice

[VIBC]

Do you think it's appropriate that our court system is based on an adversarial spectacle; a verbal fight between lawyers - the outcome depending on who won the debate, in the jury's opinion; rather than on a persistent search for the truth? Or sometimes the outcome depends on 'technicalities' that don't make much sense. At least that's the way I think it often plays out.

If a case is thrown out because police violated someone's legal rights to obtain what would otherwise be valid evidence, is justice being done? It seems to me that in such a case it would make sense if 1) the police were penalised and 2) the evidence was presented.

Or does it make sense that either 'side' may conceal inconvenient evidence that's in their possession, even if it allows an actual injustice to occur?

 

[Curious Cdn]

How about police "massaging" the evidence to put their chosen guilty party into jail. There's been a lot of those. Steven Truscott was a famous example of that sort of process.

 

[Hoid]

The system is weighted against the little guy.

The government or big corporation can keep you in court forever. They have the deep pockets.

 

[VIBC]

How about police "massaging" the evidence to put their chosen guilty party into jail. There's been a lot of those. Steven Truscott was a famous example of that sort of process.

Yes, many cases reported, of people wrongfully convicted, even executed (why don't we call that murder?) And it's not just the courts that can get things wrong. It can be the police, jumping to conclusions or even setting someone up for the sake of scoring a conviction.

Do any of these problems suggest the death penalty is always a really bad idea?

 

[Curious Cdn]

Yes, many cases reported, of people wrongfully convicted, even executed (why don't we call that murder?) And it's not just the courts that can get things wrong. It can be the police, jumping to conclusions or even setting someone up for the sake of scoring a conviction.
Do any of these problems suggest the death penalty is always a really bad idea?

I doubt that Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo ... Will Pickton were set up or railroaded. Unending incarceration is probably a more cruel punishment for that sort of convict than execution. Maybe, anyway. It's not the easiest thing to get into the mind of a psychopath but if punishment is your motivator, having them locked up 'til they rot with them full knowing that they will never live another moment of their lives free is about as punitive as you can possibly get.

 

[VIBC]

I doubt that Clifford Olsen or Paul Bernardo ... Will Pickton were set up or railroaded. Unending incarceration is probably a more cruel punishment for that sort of convict than execution. Maybe, anyway. It's not the easiest thing to get into the mind of a psychopath but if punishment is your motivator, having them locked up 'til they rot with them full knowing that they will never live another moment of their lives free is about as punitive as you can possibly get.

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?

 

[Curious Cdn]

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?

Psychopaths that feed live prostitutes to pigs sure as hell don't. Sometimes, the punishment should fit the crime.

 

[VIBC]

Psychopaths that feed live prostitutes to pigs sure as hell don't. Sometimes, the punishment should fit the crime.

I don't know. Are people with brains as weird as that, consciously able to change their behavior; or are they just wired to do strange & horrible things?
Should punishment (revenge?) be the thing we do with/to prisoners - and should punishment mimic the crime, somehow be equal to it as far as possible? I can see that being a sort of comfort to some victimized survivors (though some prefer to mentally forgive or just 'move on.')
... back later. 'Life' intervened.

 

[VIBC]

I don't know. Are people with brains as weird as that, consciously able to change their behavior; or are they just wired to do strange & horrible things?
Should punishment (revenge?) be the thing we do with/to prisoners - and should punishment mimic the crime, somehow be equal to it as far as possible? I can see that being a sort of comfort to some victimized survivors (though some prefer to mentally forgive or just 'move on.')
... back later. 'Life' intervened.

OK, the death penalty: If we had it, could you execute someone in cold blood - even if their crime had been horrible? I can visualise myself reacting in hot anger if I witnessed some awful violence done to another human, but coolly killing the criminal months or years later? Probably not,and specially if it was not a humane painless death.

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?

 

[Gilgamesh]

Do you think it's appropriate that our court system is based on an adversarial spectacle; a verbal fight between lawyers - the outcome depending on who won the debate, in the jury's opinion; rather than on a persistent search for the truth? Or sometimes the outcome depends on 'technicalities' that don't make much sense. At least that's the way I think it often plays out.

If a case is thrown out because police violated someone's legal rights to obtain what would otherwise be valid evidence, is justice being done? It seems to me that in such a case it would make sense if 1) the police were penalised and 2) the evidence was presented.

Or does it make sense that either 'side' may conceal inconvenient evidence that's in their possession, even if it allows an actual injustice to occur?

No, I think the result should be acertained by reading the entrails of chickens in the temple of Jove.

Seriously, name a better system.

 

[VIBC]

".... Seriously, name a better system." ....

I tried to describe one but the computer ate it. Now JLM says its my bedtime and I agree.

Later. (I may not sleep through the night .)

 

[Curious Cdn]

No, I think the result should be acertained by reading the entrails of chickens in the temple of Jove.
Seriously, name a better system.

Go back to the old Saxon system of trial by ordeal.

 

[DaSleeper]

You want a strange court case?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/felony-murder-teenager-55-years-jail-indiana

 

[VIBC]

Go back to the old Saxon system of trial by ordeal.

You might say we have an ordeal system now, in many ways.

What I see reported is too often a debate between opposing lawyers whose duty it is to convince the jury that their version of events is the winner, and by any means they can; which may include ignoring & withholding evidence and dramatically declaring motives and sequences of events whether they think them likely or not. Of course this kind of duplicity is not limited to the courtroom; police may lie to the accused, withhold/ignore evidence and worse.

I'd like to see a system where the objective was to arrive at the truth, not to see which of two adversarial groups can come up with the best story or hire the most accomplished debater. It would have to begin with establishing a body of competent and independent truth-seeking investigators with no stake in the outcome. Their findings would be presented to the judge and/or jury without bias or theatrics.

My point is that, however it might be done, the objective ought to be to find the truth if possible; not "the winner" by any means.

 

[Curious Cdn]

Yes, the cleverst lawyer wins. Unfortunately. Objective truth is just about impossible to detect. Looked at the strategic advantage that Trump derives from putting doubts in everybody's minds about the truth of everything in the Trumpiverse. Ask his followers "What is true" and each and every once of them will claim that everything he tells us is true, is true. [see:Joe Goebbels]

 

[VIBC]

Objective truth is just about impossible to detect.

That's not always true; but when it is, what should be the outcome of a trial. Do we want to declare a winner and a loser even if we don't know we're right? I think that's what often happens: It seems to me there are many convictions where there is room for "reasonable doubt" but the jury decides there's more doubt in one direction than the other, and convicts on that basis.

It seems we'd rather punish people who may be innocent, but we don't really know, than release people who may be guilty, but we don't really know. Is this 'a good thing'?

I don't actually say that the truth can always be determined. I believe that should be the aim of the justice system and all too often is not. As you say, frequently "the cleverest lawyer wins".

I wouldn't base my ideas about discovering truth on anything to do with Donald Trump or Joseph Goebbels (Why do people in North America call him Gerbils?)

 

[Curious Cdn]

It seems we'd rather punish people who may be innocent, but we don't really know, than release people who may be guilty, but we don't really know. Is this 'a good thing'?


Sometimes, we have to ensure the general public safety at the expense of some.

 

[VIBC]

It seems we'd rather punish people who may be innocent, but we don't really know, than release people who may be guilty, but we don't really know. Is this 'a good thing'?

Sometimes, we have to ensure the general public safety at the expense of some.

You'd have to explain to me how releasing someone who may be the criminal, or imprisoning someone who may not be the criminal, ensures the general public safety.

I was really looking for some thoughtful discourse here.

And by the way please don't misrepresent me by putting my words in bold italics, etc. when you quote me. If i'd wanted to shout them I'd have done it myself.

 

[Curious Cdn]

You'd have to explain to me how releasing someone who may be the criminal, or imprisoning someone who may not be the criminal, ensures the general public safety.
I was really looking for some thoughtful discourse here.

Sorry. Sometimes, if a really serious violent crime has taken place and there is no host of Angels hovering overhead to record the objective truth, so innocent people with be incarcerated from time to time to protect the public from their alleged violence. It's going to happen because there is no fool-proof way to determine what is true. I don't like it. It is nasty and unfair but it is inevitable that it will happen. Maybe. It will happen to be, some day. I don't fancy myself as the Count of Monte Cristo but that's the way she be, Bye. I can't stop that from happening and neither can you.

 

[VIBC]

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.