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

[Traditio]

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.

What if the citizens of Mega City 1 had a right to due process?

Perhaps "eradicate" is a strong word. But if police had the authority to bypass due process in those cases in which they literally catch the criminal red handed, or else, have indisputable evidence? That, I think, would go a far way to getting and keeping criminals off of the streets.

 

[Traditio]

General comment to all posters so far in this thread. Your objections rely on two points:

1. But the criminals might be innocent.
2. But the police could be corrupt.

2 isn't really an objection to my argument. That could apply to any system of justice. You believe in due process? Well what if the lawyers, judges and juries are corrupt? What if the officials who oversee these things are corrupt? What if everyone's corrupt?

You see why this is just a silly line of reasoning?

1 also isn't a real objection. Ex hypothesi, it's obvious that the criminals are guilty.

 

[Traditio]

Imagine how his "philosophy" (chuckle) would change after reading "Watchmen". You know, "Crime should be dealt with by a group of disparate superheroes. And global economics and government can only be properly manipulated by the super-genius of that group."

I've watched and read Watchmen. In a crossover comic, they should all be arrested and spend the rest of their lives in the cubes. Right along with Batman. And Superman, for that matter.

 

[The Berean]

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

I've watched and read Watchmen. In a crossover comic, they should all be arrested and spend the rest of their lives in the cubes. Right along with Batman. And Superman, for that matter.

How do you plan to imprison Dr. Manhattan and Superman? Their superpowers are basically God like.

 

[Traditio]

How do you plan to imprison Dr. Manhattan and Superman? Their superpowers are basically God like.

Superman's easy. Kryptonite isocube.

Dr. Manhattan...? :noid:

 

[CabinetMaker]

You and Criciform wasted a bunch of money on Philosophy degrees.

General comment to all posters so far in this thread. Your objections rely on two points:

1. But the criminals might be innocent.
2. But the police could be corrupt.

2 isn't really an objection to my argument. That could apply to any system of justice. You believe in due process? Well what if the lawyers, judges and juries are corrupt? What if the officials who oversee these things are corrupt? What if everyone's corrupt?

You see why this is just a silly line of reasoning?

What is more likely, a conspiracy of 1 with absolute power, or a conspiracy of many each with but a portion of the power? Do you see why your argument is silly?

1 also isn't a real objection. Ex hypothesi, it's obvious that the criminals are guilty.

A man comes home and finds his wife dead. She has been stabbed, the knife is nearby. He rushes to her side and cradles her in his arms and becomes covered in blood. He hears a crash at the front door and jumps up, startled.

A police officer is dispatched to a house to investigate screaming. Upon arriving, he hears wailing inside and kicks in the front door. He finds a man, covered in blood standing over the body of a dead woman with a bloody knife nearby. The cop thinks he has caught the murder red handed and so raises his gun and points it at the man...

Tell me Trad, would due process be good in this situation?

 

[Traditio]

What is more likely, a conspiracy of 1 with absolute power, or a conspiracy of many each with but a portion of the power?

I think we safely can probably discount both.

A man comes home and finds his wife dead. She has been stabbed, the knife is nearby. He rushes to her side and cradles her in his arms and becomes covered in blood. He hears a crash at the front door and jumps up, startled.

A police officer is dispatched to a house to investigate screaming. Upon arriving, he hears wailing inside and kicks in the front door. He finds a man, covered in blood standing over the body of a dead woman with a bloody knife nearby. The cop thinks he has caught the murder red handed and so raises his gun and points it at the man...

Tell me Trad, would due process be good in this situation?

1. Mistakes are made, even given due process.

2. You don't give policemen enough credit. Are you familiar with Joe Kenda?

 

[CabinetMaker]

I think we safely can probably discount both.

I don't think we can. Absolute power and all.

1. Mistakes are made, even given due process.

That is a rather disturbing cavalier attitude that I do not share.

2. You don't give policemen enough credit. Are you familiar with Joe Kenda?

Sure. Have you ever heard of Robert Gisevius, Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso?

 

[CabinetMaker]

One more thing to consider Trad, scripture requires two witnesses and a judge so your proposal completely ignores God's standard for convicting and punishing a criminal.

 

[kmoney]

I think we safely can probably discount both.



1. Mistakes are made, even given due process.

2. You don't give policemen enough credit. Are you familiar with Joe Kenda?

I doubt anyone denies that mistakes are made even with due process. The question is if due process lessens mistakes, which would be better. Especially when a mistake could mean the unjust killing of someone.

You mentioned there being other departments that could have oversight over the police but I'm still unsure how you see such investigations working.

One more thing to consider Trad, scripture requires two witnesses and a judge so your proposal completely ignores God's standard for convicting and punishing a criminal.

Good point. :think:

 

[Caledvwlch]

Has anyone else pointed out yet the apparent irony of a person arguing for the elimination of due process with an "...and Justice for All" avatar? To me, it's the cherry on top of this Crazy Thread Sundae.

 

[kmoney]

:chuckle:

 

[Tinark]

General comment to all posters so far in this thread. Your objections rely on two points:

1. But the criminals might be innocent.
2. But the police could be corrupt.

2 isn't really an objection to my argument. That could apply to any system of justice. You believe in due process? Well what if the lawyers, judges and juries are corrupt? What if the officials who oversee these things are corrupt? What if everyone's corrupt?

You see why this is just a silly line of reasoning?

1 also isn't a real objection. Ex hypothesi, it's obvious that the criminals are guilty.

Do you understand the idea of a system of checks and balances, and how it is far less likely for every part of the system to be corrupt than just a single part of the system?'

Edit: looks like CabinetMaker already made the same point above.

 

[resodko]

General comment to all posters so far in this thread. Your objections rely on two points:

1. But the criminals might be innocent.

no

those believed by flawed men to be criminals might be innocent

2. But the police could be corrupt.

i think there's been plenty of evidence over the years to support the belief that some police are certainly corrupt

 

[Traditio]

Reflection on Judge Dredd: People criticize the Platonic gaurdians and auxillaries as being liable to corruption. There must be checks and balances, which are painfully missing both from Plato's Republic and the Judge system of justice in the Judge Dredd universe. This objection simply misses the point: the ideal system of law does not seek for checks and balances; the ideal system of law makes checks and balances unnecessary. Judge Dredd does not need an outside enforcer of law to keep him in line. Judge Dredd is the law, and this in two senses. First, the authority of his office entitles him to enforce law...yes, but more importantly, second: he is a law to himself. As a virtuous person, he embodies law in his very mode of life. As such, he is superior to the law, that is, with respect to servile fear of its penalties. The Academy of Law, I think, is not an unmusical (albeit fictional) institution.

 

[WizardofOz]

One more thing to consider Trad, scripture requires two witnesses and a judge so your proposal completely ignores God's standard for convicting and punishing a criminal.

:thumb:

Trad?

 

[kmoney]

Reflection on Judge Dredd: People criticize the Platonic gaurdians and auxillaries as being liable to corruption. There must be checks and balances, which are painfully missing both from Plato's Republic and the Judge system of justice in the Judge Dredd universe. This objection simply misses the point: the ideal system of law does not seek for checks and balances; the ideal system of law makes checks and balances unnecessary. Judge Dredd does not need an outside enforcer of law to keep him in line. Judge Dredd is the law, and this in two senses. First, the authority of his office entitles him to enforce law...yes, but more importantly, second: he is a law to himself. As a virtuous person, he embodies law in his very mode of life. As such, he is superior to the law, that is, with respect to servile fear of its penalties. The Academy of Law, I think, is not an unmusical (albeit fictional) institution.

No, I think the point you are missing (unless we're just talking about different things) is that we don't live in an ideal world. Law enforcement isn't completely virtuous.

If you can find a virtuous police force then I'll support your plan. And if Jesus comes down to rule I'm not going to cry for checks and balances. But until then....

 

[Traditio]

One more thing to consider Trad, scripture requires two witnesses and a judge so your proposal completely ignores God's standard for convicting and punishing a criminal.

:thumb:

Trad?

Alright. Let's count up the witnesses. In the cases that I've described, there's, at the very least, 1. the policeman and 2. the criminal (unless he perjures himself, and in such a case, he should be punished for that too). How many witnesses is that? Ex hypothesi, the policeman is entitled to act as a judge.

So, would you say that the standard is fulfilled or no?

Furthermore, this requirement is a judicial precept of the Mosaic Law: it was a determination of law for that particular people at that particular time. In point of fact, we don't hold to this standard now in many cases, and we don't need to do so. Think: DNA evidence and CSI.

 

[kmoney]

Trad, if all police were mandated to wear cameras at all times then your idea would be easier to accept. :think:

 

[Traditio]

Trad, if all police were mandated to wear cameras at all times then your idea would be easier to accept. :think:

This is a stupid idea. My stepfather, a policeman, makes an excellent point. Do you realize how expensive that would be? Especially given the fact that all of those tapes would be public record? Anyone could request as many of them as they like, and the State would have to provide them...probably free of charge. Plus, factor in the cost of editing all of those tapes to take out names and faces...?