Says who? Other countries may have really ****ed up laws, but there are other court systems out there that may do it better. We have to distinguish the law and the court. Sure, in the UK you can be thrown in jail for shooting someone in self defense. But is that an artifact of their ****ty self defense laws, or the court system?it's still the best in the world
But Fletch, you can't possibly be insinuating that District Attorneys and other non-uniformed law enforcement officers would ever be willing to imprison a man simply to maintain political viability, especially if a particular case is of a high enough profile can you? That's unthinkable.
Says who? Other countries may have really ****ed up laws, but there are other court systems out there that may do it better. We have to distinguish the law and the court. Sure, in the UK you can be thrown in jail for shooting someone in self defense. But is that an artifact of their ****ty self defense laws, or the court system?
One country, forget which but could go look for it if it's really necessary, has separate trials -- first to determine whether a crime has in fact been committed, then to determine whether or not this person committed it. This gets around the perp-walk bias. It turns out that if you put a person in the defendant's chair and accuse them of a crime, they can be convicted just because they've been accused, EVEN IF the facts don't support the idea that a crime was committed in the first place.
And if our court system were the best, why would that necessarily mean it didn't need improvement? We've got massive fraud coast to coast, in the field of criminal forensics. It's been documented and reported, and more is being uncovered. Crime labs process evidence usually at the behest of the prosecution, which gives incentives for corrupted testimony (see Hayne, Stephen). Why don't we have competing labs, double-blind labs, or compulsory matching funds for the defense?
To blithely assert that the system is just fine and dandy is to ignore the masses of people who've been wrongfully convicted and later set free because it was found that they were factually innocent. That is not the system "working", that's the system screwing up. It is not the product of a system to be proud of or to put your trust in. All of us are one fishy-looking self-defense shoot away from being in the meat grinder, losing our houses, jobs, families, and everything else, and it won't matter how rosy we think the picture is.
Mike Nifong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaYes I am saying that. It is time to remove immunity from District Attorney's. They ruin people lives all the time for nothing.
says me, the only opinion that matters to me
See OP.perp-walk bias? see Florida vs. Anthony (right decision by the way)
I never said anything about the justice system not needing improvement or that there is never injustice in our system, I simply said we have the best justice system in the world, I did not say we had a perfect justice system.
I had never been more proud to live in the United States the day Casey Anthony was found not guilty
But you are opining that the innocent should just maintain their innocence.
I feel pretty comfortable saying those guilty (or admit to) of manslaughter should not be allowed to own firearms, regardless of "circumstances"
Our troops are fighting a war. In a war, people fight back. If you want to declare war on the American people, we will fight back. Do you want us to start fighting back?
as I have stated, he made a choice, and actions have consquences. I feel pretty comfortable saying those guilty (or admit to) of manslaughter should not be allowed to own firearms, regardless of "circumstances"
Not be allowed? Who should allow or not allow someone to keep or bear arms? Our government is not allowed to infringe on that RIGHT. Have you taken an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?
what makes it ok to put somebody in prison? is that not infringing on somebody's right?
Did I miss something, wasn't this guy linked to drug dealing?
what makes it ok to put somebody in prison? is that not infringing on somebody's right?
It is clearly outlined in the Constitution that certain rights can be revoked during a person's time being incarcerated. Your strawman is weak.
Maye was prosecuted for Murder in the shooting of the officer breaking into his house.
so now, even if the police have a seach warrant, is still "breaking into" someones home?