Reply With Quote
Not in my scenerio.
Then you would go to prison as a killer.
Not in my scenerio.
Obviously, you do not understand how the American justice system works.
People are ASSUMED innocent until guilty.
Do you think that we've managed to correctly put in jail EVERY pedophile? No. Some of them go free. Such is the price of justice.
OJ got off free due to a technicality. Don't like it? at the policemen who ed up their work.
The reason the standards are so high is because you're determining the lives of people. We OUGHT to hold ourselves to the highest standards of justice, in order that we may be as assured as possible that we are fair and only put in jail the people who have committed the crime.
Right. Someone else would immediately kill you because you'd be a known killer.
Ah, what a wonderful world it would be Jack. Where you would be free to kill whoever you were sure was guilty. And if you make a mistake... whoops! My bad.
You asked me what I would do. This is my story now. I would be ridding the world of murderers,child molestors, rapist and thieves. I would be the peoples Vigilante. I would be depicted as being a hero and retaliatory against wrongdoers.
What is stopping you?
no,no,no........ You said even if you knew the perosn was guilty of Child Molesting you would let them go. No if's or opinions, you said knew. That is ed up.
"Yup the guy killed 20 people because the devil told him to do it, but we got to let him go, officer didnot read him his rights, oh well!"
I would go to jail!!!
So in the real world, you would indeed let killers and child molesters off on legal technicalities.
Reread it, putz. I said I'm willing to let pedophiles go. We all do, given the system of law we have.
We're all willing to accept certain things. Children will die in wars, yet we still have them. Innocent people will go to jail. Guilty people will be acquitted.
My point is that there's no way to KNOW someone was guilty unless you were physically involved with the situation. The only way to DETERMINE guilt is by giving them a trial.
If the evidence of that trial is insufficient due to a procedural miscue (for instance, let's say that he admits something to the cops, but it isn't allowed in court due to the cops forgetting to read him his rights), and he goes free, well, he goes free.
That's the price we pay to secure our liberty. Some killers and pedophiles will go free, because we assume innocence before guilt. EVERYONE that believes in the American system of government does so, knowingly or unknowingly.
Additionally; your hypothetical case makes no sense. If a person was not read his Miranda rights, the only thing inadmissible in court would be a self-confession. The prosecution could still use the evidence at the crime scene, eyewitness testimony, etc etc.
I read what you wrote. No need for name calling. You said what you said and I disagree with you. Because a officer did not read the guilty pedophile his rights I would not let him go. I wouldn't let him rape another kid on a legal technicality. That's ed up. Good news for you....Our country laws agree with you!
My made up story does not make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!! Too funny.
Do u?
OJ didn't get let off on a legal technicality. A jury found him innocent. If you are going to make such bold statements get ur facts straight.OJ got off free due to a technicality. Don't like it? at the policemen who ed up their work.
Not following the rule of law? That's some sweet sweet judicial activism.
He's not GUILTY until he's found guilty by a court of law. Him not being read his rights would not preclude the court from using OTHER EVIDENCE.
However, it would prevent them from using a sworn admission.
Do you understand why it's important that EVERY person be treated equally, or as equally as possible under the law?
It's not the POLICE'S job to determine who's guilty or not. I'm not sure if you're aware of history, but there is a REASON for separation of the three branches. If you don't like it, then you don't like American government.
Yes, the jury found him innocent. However, it was mostly due to the screwup of the LAPD and how they handled the evidence. Do you not consider that a 'technicality'? I mean, so what if they mishandled some evidence, right?
Usually hypothetical cases are supposed to be taken somewhat seriously, or it defeats the purpose of stating said hypothetical case.
I would like to kill them myself. However, we are a nation of laws. We have to let them go. That doesn't mean they wont be closely watched...
The differences with those at GITMO is they don't fall under federal or state jurisdiction, unless we bring them to the states. The rules will shift to their favor, because of laws like Miranda and the technicalities. they deserve a Military tribunal, as outlined in the cons ution. Nothing more, nothing less.
Where please, counselor?
Even Bush wanted to close GITMO.
It doesn't specify "military tribunal" but it does make way for "tribunals."
In Article 1, section 8, under Congressional Powers:Then there are also the courts that can be established by the president. In Wiki under Article I and Article III tribunalsTo cons ute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;Now technically, a tribunal can be any type of a court. Maybe even a Star Chamber.Article II tribunals
The least common, and most controversial category are Article II tribunals, so called as they emanate from either the powers granted to the President of the United States in Article II of the Cons ution or from the inherent authority of the President as head of state and commander in chief. Article II tribunals lack direct appeal channels to Article III courts, unless specifically granted by Executive Order, but their decisions may be attacked collaterally by habeas corpus actions. Article II tribunals have often been established under the President's authority (which may or may not be delegated), and pursuant to his responsibility, as Commander in Chief to maintain order and justice in military occupied territories and insular possessions. The High Court of American Samoa, whose judges and justices are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, is an example of an Article II tribunal, as were military tribunals prior to 2006, and was the United States Court for Berlin.
You see, as long as civil protections are not granted to those picked up on the battlefield, congress or the president can authorize a military tribunal. It wouldn't need to allow for the same legal maneuvering lawyers often use. Maybe I'm wrong about the laws changing if they are brought to CONUS. Afterall, the fifth amendment reads:Accounting for war actions, maybe the federal and state laws also don't apply. That I don't know one way or the other. I know it's easier to conduct a military tribunal outside the state or federal jurisdiction, without someone attempting to challenge its legitimacy.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
One Man. One Mission.
No . Someone said what they would do and why the law is there and I said what I would do and why the law should be changed.
If everybody knows someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt,eye witnesses,forsenic,video's, confessions there is no way in I would let them go because they were not read their miranda rights.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
