Due Process is Stupid And Should Be Waived Most of the Time

[Caledvwlch]

1. Presumably, police branch A or B.

2. You are unrealistically jumping to the worst "what if's"? What if all branches of the police are utterly corrupt and they don't do their jobs at all?

That's exceedingly unlikely.

There are not many worse "what if's" than losing the protections of due process.

 

[Traditio]

There are not many worse "what if's" than losing the protections of due process.

Why should a criminal be entitled to due process if neither the matter of fact or the matter of law is in question? Why should a criminal who has been caught red handed be entitled to a trial?

 

[Caledvwlch]

Why should a criminal be entitled to due process if neither the matter of fact or the matter of law is in question? Why should a criminal who has been caught red handed be entitled to a trial?

Because it's his constitutional right. Because if it can be taken from him, it can be taken from you, arbitrarily and for no justifiable reason.

 

[The Berean]

Trad, you must be of fan of Judge Dredd. :chuckle:

For those who don't know, Judge Dredd is a British comic book. It is set in the future where society has become so overpopulated and so violent that there are no longer regular policemen but instead there are "street judges". Street judges are highly trained individuals in police work, hand-to-hand-combat, weapons, and the law and have the authority and power to act as judge, jury, and executioner of lawbreakers, often on the spot. Judge Dredd is the greatest and most feared of the all the street judges. Is this the kind of "law enforcement" we want in our society? :noid:

.

 

[Traditio]

Because it's his constitutional right.

That's not very convincing. You realize this, right?

Because if it can be taken from him, it can be taken from you, arbitrarily and for no justifiable reason.

The justifiable reason is that the matter of fact and matter of law already are established, thereby rendering a trial superfluous.

 

[Traditio]

Trad, you must be of fan of Judge Dredd. :chuckle:

For those who don't know, Judge Dredd is a British comic book. It is set in the future where society has become so overpopulated and so violent that there are no long regular policemen but instead there are "street judges". Street judges are highly trained individuals in police work, hand-to-hand-combat, weapons, and the law and have the authority and power to act as judge, jury, and executioner of lawbreakers, often on the spot. Judge Dredd is the greatest and most feared of the all the street judges. Is this the kind of "law enforcement" we want in our society? :noid:

.

I was actually thinking Judge Dredd meets Plato's auxillaries. The internal affairs units I had in mind were the SJS from the Judge Dredd series.

You have to admit. This would make society much safer, and would pretty well contain, if not eradicate, the criminal element.

 

[Caledvwlch]

That's not very convincing. You realize this, right?

But it is the law.

The justifiable reason is that the matter of fact and matter of law already are establish, thereby rendering a trial superfluous.

So we should just rely on a police officer's word? Without forcing the state to prove anything in front of a jury? I'm just a little distraught that you seem so glib about throwing away what might be our most important constitutional guarantee because you think some dude with a badge on his shirt can make the call for us.

 

[resodko]

will we require our police officers to be masters of philosophy?

 

[musterion]

I smell a Jesuit.

 

[The Berean]

I was actually thinking Judge Dredd meets Plato's auxillaries. The internal affairs units I had in mind were the SJS from the Judge Dredd series.

Ok!

You have to admit. This would make society much safer, and would pretty well contain, if not eradicate, the criminal element.

Would it though? :idunno: In the world of Judge Dredd there is still pervasive and extreme violence despite the existence of the street judges. Crime is most often driven by economic needs and greed. Economic need can be met but greed is something different.

 

[genuineoriginal]

In criminal trials, there are, I take it, two things which must be determined: matters of fact and matters of law. That is, answers to two questions must be provided in order to ensure a fair verdict and sentence for the criminal: 1. What actually happened? 2. What point of the law applies?

The scope of the first question may be narrowed in a criminal case: Here is the crime of which the accused is accused. Did he actually commit that crime?

The second question: Granted that he did that of which he is accused, how does the law apply to his particular case?

Due process ensures that the criminal is treated fairly, and that these two questions are answered fairly and adequately.

For matters of fact, there are juries.

For matters of law, there are judges.

For the execution of sentences, there are executioners.

And due process is perfectly superfluous in at least some cases, namely:

When the matter of fact is evident, because the police officers are witnessing it happen, or because there is an abundance of witnesses or physical evidence, and the mental state of the criminal is not in doubt.

Consider the following case, for example: Suspects have just robbed a bank. Police arrive before the suspects can escape. Suspects fire shots at the police.

There's no question of fact. The police are certain that the suspects are shooting at them. There's no question of matters of law: 1. Bank robbery, 2. attempted murder of policemen.

There's no need for separate judges, juries and executioners. Once the police apprehend the suspect, they should be able to be judge, jury and executioner right there. The suspect shouldn't even make it to the police station alive.

In such cases where the facts are manifestly evident to the police officer, the only trial that a suspect should receive, if he should receive one at all, is in an appelate court.

This sounds suprising familiar.

Have you been watching movies based on comic books, or have you been reading comic books?

 

[genuineoriginal]

For those of you who disagree with me, consider the benefits of my recommendation:

1. It would very much lighten the load on the criminal courts.
2. It would save a ton of tax-payer money.
3. It would decrease the number of malfactors roaming the streets.

Here is someone that did you one better:

During the six years of his rein, there was absolutely no crime at all within Romania and Transylvania.​

Spoiler

Vlad the Impaler

In a bloody six year reign, Prince Vlad Dracula, first heir to the throne of Romania, was more than just the inspiration to one of the world’s most marvelous, renowned horror tales. He is best known as the real Count Dracula, drinking the blood of his dead or still dying victims. A dictator who went to the upmost extremes to keep his country running, he is by far one of the most monstrous people in history. To this day he is referred to as Vlad tepish, translating into ‘Vlad the impailer’ in favor of his favorite method of killing.

Petty crimes were punishable by death, so his people were on their best behavior. But whilst in power his death toll reached into the near hundreds of thousands, most of them being innocent human beings (the majority children and elderly).​

 

[annabenedetti]

And due process is perfectly superfluous in at least some cases, namely:

When the matter of fact is evident, because the police officers are witnessing it happen, or because there is an abundance of witnesses or physical evidence, and the mental state of the criminal is not in doubt.

If the police are corrupt...

They shoot, say they were attacked, end of story.

If the internal affairs units are corrupt...

You live in a dystopian hellhole. Good luck with that.

 

[zoo22]

Note to self: Assassinate any Philosopher Kings which manage to attain power. lain:

No worries, this is a philosopher court jester.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

This likewise would have prevented the Michael Brown protests. The facts of the case were evident enough: Robbery of a convenience store, assault, assault on a police officer, and attempted murder of a police officer (he reached for the police officer's gun)? No need to claim self-defense.

The cop could have judged him, sentenced him and executed him right there.

Then the headlines wouldn't have read: "Police shoots an unarmed suspect."

The headlines would have read: "Policeman executes a condemned criminal."

And that wouldn't provide much impulse for protests, would it?

(Boy, the things career students come up with).

Self defense is a God-given right whether you're a commissioned police officer or a citizen on the street.

There is no "due process" when a police officer or a citizen is fighting for their life.

Due process happens after the arrest has been made and the suspected criminal goes through the criminal court process (arraignment, trial by judge or jury, sentencing if found guilty of the crime charged with).

 

[Town Heretic]

I considered giving you the old whoo-ha or a thoughtful dressing down on the topic, but then thought your thinking on due process is stupid and posting in response should be waived until you're better educated on the topic.

Start with this from the Cato Institute: In Defense of Due Process, or the Promise of Lawful Rule, by Timothy Sandefur

:e4e:

 

[This Charming Manc]

*shakes head*

*burps*

*decides the initial post has been given more than the attention it deserves*

 

[TomO]

No worries, this is a philosopher court jester.

:think:


lain: Better whack him anyway....Can't be too sure about these things.

*shakes head*

*burps*

*decides the initial post has been given more than the attention it deserves*

All good points.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The fatal flaw in Trad's argument is that it is built on the assumption that police officers are perfect judges in all situations. Police are people subject to all the same emotions that we are. They will make mistakes and abuse of power is not unheard of. It is prudent to have due process to make sure that abuse of power does not result in the death of innocent people.

 

[Caledvwlch]

The fatal flaw in Trad's argument is that it is built on the assumption that police officers are perfect judges in all situations. Police are people subject to all the same emotions that we are. They will make mistakes and abuse of power is not unheard of. It is prudent to have due process to make sure that abuse of power does not result in the death of innocent people.

That's putting it mildly.