Due Process is a Sham

[resodko]

certainly not with a thread title that lends itself so readily to derailment! :banana:

...

 

[resodko]

But the lawyers weren't there so they don't know.

then they should remove themselves and go find honest jobs


filling potholes, for example


we've got lots of potholes up here

many of them would take two or three lawyers packed in tight to fill them

 

[Tinark]

Consider the following:

Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have access to all of the same evidence. They know in advance pretty much how the trial will turn out, at least, insofar as the evidence being presented goes. And yet, no matter how many trials we witness, a wonder, a veritable "miracle" will happen:

Even though both parties have access to the exact same evidence, the prosecuting attorney will always conclude A, and the defense attorney will always conclude not A.

They have the same evidence, and yet, they will always make opposite conclusions? Without fail? Without exception? How can this possibly be?

Because that's what they're being paid to do. Due process is nothing but an opportunity for the sophists to put on their rhetorical display, to trick the juries, and make a mockery of justice. :nono:

So your argument is basically "people (juries) are too stupid to make an objective decision"?

The alternatives are professional juries (people who have training and are most qualified are hired to sit on juries full time) or tribunals like in military courts. Which of these two alternatives do you think is superior?

 

[Tinark]

And guilty persons who don't want to pay their just due. Let us not forget them.

The burden is on the state to prove their case, not the guilty to prove their innocence. If the state failed to convince a jury a person who was really guilty was actually guilty, then that's the state's failure.

 

[resodko]

So your argument is basically "people (juries) are too stupid to make an objective decision"?

well :duh:

lawyers don't want intelligent people on the jury - stupid people are much more easily manipulated

The alternatives are professional juries (people who have training and are most qualified are hired to sit on juries full time) or tribunals like in military courts. Which of these two alternatives do you think is superior?

a tribunal made up of trained judges is closer to the biblical model

but what's wrong with a single judge?

 

[Tinark]

No, but they both have the same evidence at hand, and both of them should be able to tell what the evidence actually indicates.

That's not their role. Now, obviously, the prosecutor has a duty to only take cases that they believe there is sufficient evidence of guilt.

Additionally, a defense attorney may believe their client is guilty but still provide them a defense afforded them as a right granted by this country.

 

[Tinark]

well :duh:

lawyers don't want intelligent people on the jury - stupid people are much more easily manipulated



a tribunal made up of trained judges is closer to the biblical model

but what's wrong with a single judge?

A single person is far more likely to make errors and mistakes than a panel of people. If errors and mistakes are something you want in our justice system, having a one person jury is probably a good start.

 

[resodko]

That's not their role. Now, obviously, the prosecutor has a duty to only take cases that they believe there is sufficient evidence of guilt.

Additionally, a defense attorney may believe their client is guilty but still provide them a defense afforded them as a right granted by this country.

"prosecuter" :nono:

"defense attorney" :nono:


just scumbag words for useless scumbag lawyers who serve no useful purpose

 

[resodko]

A single person is far more likely to make errors and mistakes than a panel of people.

you have a link to the study you're citing?

 

[Tinark]

you have a link to the study you're citing?

It's self-evident. Why in the world would you need a link to a study that one person is going to have a higher error rate in making a decision compared to that person plus one or more other people coming to a consensus?

 

[resodko]

a single person claims:

It's self-evident.....

:darwinsm:

 

[Tinark]

"prosecuter" :nono:

"defense attorney" :nono:


just scumbag words for useless scumbag lawyers who serve no useful purpose

Your stance makes no sense whatsoever. How can you have a justice system without one side (the state, the people) laying out the case for someone's guilt? Are you saying that no one should have to make the case for someone's guilt? Guilty until proven innocent, or something?

 

[Tinark]

a single person claims:



:darwinsm:

It's basic deductive logic, something which I know you struggle with:

Person A makes a mistake X% of the time when making a binary decision (guilty/not guilty)
Person B makes a mistake Y% of the time

Therefore, the odds that person A and B will both make a mistake on the decision (both be wrong) is necessarily going to be lower than both X% and Y%

 

[resodko]

It's basic deductive logic, something which I know you struggle with:

Person A makes a mistake X% of the time when making a binary decision (guilty/not guilty)
Person B makes a mistake Y% of the time

Therefore, the odds that person A and B will both make a mistake on the decision (both be wrong) is necessarily going to be lower than both X% and Y%

and ......



whooooooosh!


right over his head! :darwinsm:

 

[Tinark]

and ......



whooooooosh!


right over his my head! :darwinsm:

FIFY

 

[Traditio]

It's basic deductive logic

If you're giving an argument, then is the claim that you've made really self-evident?

Person A makes a mistake X% of the time when making a binary decision (guilty/not guilty)
Person B makes a mistake Y% of the time

Therefore, the odds that person A and B will both make a mistake on the decision (both be wrong) is necessarily going to be lower than both X% and Y%

I don't see how your conclusion follows:

Premise: Person A makes a mistake 1 in 4 times.
Premise: Person B makes a mistake 1 in 4 times.
Conclusion: Chances of A and B, making a decision together, making a mistake is 1 in 16.

Is this something like what you're saying?

If so, then you're just wrong. For one thing, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. You would be correct if they were each making a decision about the same thing independently of each other (just as my chance of rolling a 1 jumps from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 if I roll two dice instead of one). The chances of them both making a mistake, independently of each other, would be in 1 in 16. Nonetheless, even then, your overall conclusion still doesn't follow. If each makes a mistake 1 in 4 times, and they're both making a decision, the chance of at least one of them making a mistake actually doubles. The chance that at least one of them will fall into error is actually 1 in 2 instead of 1 in 4, if they're making a decision independently of each other. At any rate, your argument simply doesn't follow at all if they are making a single decision together.

Second, I once remember reading or hearing that, psychological/sociological studies (one of the two) have shown that people actually exercise greater prudence, are more careful, etc. when they have to make a decision all by themselves. "Group think," since it strips the individuals of individual responsibility, makes the individuals more careless.

Consider:

Someone asks me a question. Only I am allowed to answer, and it's important that I get the answer right. I am more likely to think carefully about it and try to arrive at the best answer I can.

Someone asks me a question, and there are 5 other people I can consult with. They all say X. Whether or not X is true, I can say: "Well, they're all saying so. Why not? I'll just go with that." Why put in so much mental effort when there's no personal responsibility, when I can just "pass the buck" onto the group collectively? Not to mention, of course, that it's never fun to disagree with an entire group of people, right? That makes you an outsider, and that's bad, right?

 

[Traditio]

So your argument is basically "people (juries) are too stupid to make an objective decision"?

How on earth did you get this from what I wrote? I wrote nothing of the sort.

The alternatives are professional juries (people who have training and are most qualified are hired to sit on juries full time) or tribunals like in military courts. Which of these two alternatives do you think is superior?

False dichotomy. What I actually advocate is the Judge Dredd style of criminal justice.

 

[Traditio]

That's not their role.

That's precisely my criticism. Therefore, due process is a sham. It is a perversion of justice. QED.

 

[Traditio]

Not necessarily ... which is why there is a defense. It's also important to know *why* a crime is committed so that the person being charged is given an appropriate sentence.

I agree that it is fitting that the reason why the crime is being committed should be taken into account. But it does not follow from this that there need be a separate prosecuting/defending attorney.

 

[Traditio]

Here's your mistake, they don't come to opposite conclusions, they argue opposite sides, different animal.

Go watch Twelve Angry Men, or it's modern adaptation My Cousin Vinny.

I've seen My Cousin Vinny. A few points:

1. Court cases like in the movies generally don't happen. Generally, no evidence is presented in a trial that surprises either attorney. They're well aware of all of the evidence well in advance.

2. I don't see how you are saying something very different from what I am saying. The prosecuting attorney: Based on the evidence, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty. The defending attorney: Based on the evidence, it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendent is guilty.

Every. Single. Time.

Are they working from different evidence? No. A different standard of evidence? No. Is their schooling radically different? No. Is one of them vastly more competent than the other? No.

So why do they always argue to opposite conclusions from the same evidence? It's almost like they're being paid. :think: