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

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
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.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
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?
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
Note to self: Assassinate any Philosopher Kings which manage to attain power. :plain:
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
Note to self: Assassinate any Philosopher Kings which manage to attain power. :plain:

See? Another excellent example. If someone is caught red-handed trying to assassinate a public authority, should he really be entitled to due process?

I say "no." The police should judge him, sentence him and execute him right there on the spot.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
See? Another excellent example. If someone is caught red-handed trying to assassinate a public authority, should he really be entitled to due process?

I say "no." The police should judge him, sentence him and execute him right there on the spot.

This is insane. Count me on the other side.
 

resodko

BANNED
Banned
See? Another excellent example. If someone is caught red-handed trying to assassinate a public authority, should he really be entitled to due process?

I say "no." The police should judge him, sentence him and execute him right there on the spot.

what if the public authority is deserving of execution?

isn't it the citizen's duty to act as judge jury and executioner?
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
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.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
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.

None of those would even begin to make up for what we would lose. I say again. This is insane.
 

Samstarrett

New member
what if they're corrupt?

What if they are?

Ultimately, there is someone who will get away with corruption if he so chooses. You can appoint someone to watch the watchers. You can, maybe, even appoint someone to watch the watcher watchers. But it's watchers all the way down and the chain terminates somewhere.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
what if they're corrupt?

If the police are corrupt, then the internal affairs units should be able to arrest/imprison corrupt policemen. If the internal affairs units are corrupt, then the police should be able to arrest/imprison corrupt internal affairs people. Or let us posit a third police force which can do this.

Police branch A polices civilians police branch C. Police branch B polices police branch A. Police branch C polices police branch B.

That said, I think that a primary police force and an internal affairs force are sufficient.
 

Caledvwlch

New member
If the police are corrupt, then the internal affairs units should be able to arrest/imprison corrupt policemen. If the internal affairs units are corrupt, then the police should be able to arrest/imprison corrupt internal affairs people. Or let us posit a third police force which can do this.

Police branch A polices civilians police branch C. Police branch B polices police branch A. Police branch C polices police branch B.

And then who polices branch C? You realize that this is why there is due process in the Bill of Rights, right?
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
See? Another excellent example. If someone is caught red-handed trying to assassinate a public authority, should he really be entitled to due process?

I say "no." The police should judge him, sentence him and execute him right there on the spot.

I didn't say I'd try....If you ever find yourself on a throne make sure your Last Will and Testament is filled out. :plain:
 

Caledvwlch

New member
I didn't say I'd try....If you ever find yourself on a throne make sure your Last Will and Testament is filled out. :plain:

Ditto. The things you (Traditio, not Tom O) are saying are antithetical to the foundations of a free society.
 

Traditio

BANNED
Banned
And then who polices branch C? You realize that this is why there is due process in the Bill of Rights, right?

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.
 
Top