|
CommieGIR posted:My point is more towards people like Jarmak and others. Then please indicate that that's what you're doing- you jumped into a discussion of a different claim to make an unrelated point, which just further confuses the discourse. Toasticle posted:Ignoring the concept that there can evidence used to indict you that can't be used to convict you It's really normal for evidence to be selective in its valid application. Evidence available for indictment that's not available for conviction is A Thing, much like evidence that's valid for past history but not for present action and a bunch of other counterintuitive uses. That's just how rules of evidence operate. Toasticle posted:Again, if someone wants to remain anonymous then any identifying info is withheld. If the accused wants to be referred to as John Doe, fine. All we are talking about is letting some view into the GJ to make sure there's no impropriety. And it works both ways, uncover the scum and show the good ones did the job as they should. Remove peoples speculations about what went on in a secret meeting and you help people regain faith in the system. The big reason I'm aware of is with relation to evidence from the GJ tainting the jury pool- a GJ leak is often enough to force a mistrial and/or extend a case for years, for the reasons CommieGIR is referring to-people, including jurors, are really easily manipulated by improperly introduced evidence. I think oversight wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily(I'm not sure exactly what it would be looking for, per se), but one of the reasons we have pooled GJ cases in the first place is because they're incredibly expensive and time-consuming; I'm not sure how feasible the oversight you're referring to would be, at least at the state level. My guess is DoJ already has an IA office that can do similar things at the federal level.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Then please indicate that that's what you're doing- you jumped into a discussion of a different claim to make an unrelated point, which just further confuses the discourse. My bad, I didn't mean to mislead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:My bad, I didn't mean to mislead. No worries- arguing grand juries as vindicators is obnoxious, but justice systems produce good results only in the aggregate, even at the best of times. Convictions, accquitals, failures to indict- none of them offer genuine moral certainty. Everyone-including everyone in this thread, feels an overwhelming need to construct a narrative for themselves about how the individual case "proves" something, even if it can mean very little on its own. I think that's part of why we're all so unpleasant here. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:My point is more towards people like Jarmak and others. Could you please point out an instance of me making that argument? Or hell, anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Could you please point out an instance of me making that argument? The prosecutor repeatedly made the argument that the Grand Jury's decision not to indict was meaningful, and not just an extension of the prosecutor's decision-making. http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/SYN//68177/NewsDetailTemplate.aspx quote:Although not required by Ohio law, I now have all evidence reviewed not just by the prosecutor or this office, but by the citizens of the Grand Jury sitting as an investigative panel. quote:But the Grand Jury lived with this case for more than two months, heard all the witnesses and was there to evaluate their credibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Could you please point out an instance of me making that argument? Jarmak posted:It doesn't work like that, a defense attorney has an ethical duty to defend his client regardless of guilt, a DA has an ethical duty to not pursue charges against people they think are innocent. The DA directly ignored falsified police statements by the officers on the scene, attempted to misconstrue evidence, and then threw a grand jury, immediately after laying bare the fact that he basically wouldn't had tried the case before the grand jury even if the cops had written their guilty admission in the victims own blood on their patrol car.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A Fancy Bloke is attempting to argue that a high indictment rate at the GJ is proof that its standard is too low, which ignores the fact that prosecutors select cases for indictment based on the preexisting restriction that is the grand jury. No I'm not. I'm arguing that it's basically a show trial guaranteed to indict UNLESS the prosecutor decides to throw it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No worries- arguing grand juries as vindicators is obnoxious, but justice systems produce good results only in the aggregate, even at the best of times. Convictions, accquitals, failures to indict- none of them offer genuine moral certainty. Everyone-including everyone in this thread, feels an overwhelming need to construct a narrative for themselves about how the individual case "proves" something, even if it can mean very little on its own. I think that's part of why we're all so unpleasant here. As an unpleasant person the only thing that irritates me (well, except the handful of cops can do no wrong ever) is there are problems in the system. What gets me unpleasant is the responses that are "Well that's the law" or how difficult it would be to change. Every system needs an overhaul now and then, the current relationship between the non-white public and the police is toxic and now people are seeing just how much the court system can gently caress over people too. I refuse to accept that the system the way it is can't be made better or this lame 'But it would be haaaard you'd need magic', of course it would be, but right now we have a court system that has become so arcane and complex that even above average people get lost in it, then having someone tell them well that's just the system! Is just wrong. Not saying it should be easy but it should be more open to the public at minimum. I mean how can you read cases like that kid who got 'lost' in the system in Rikers for like 7 years and not think ok, this is not working right, something needs to change. Same reason for this and its previous version, public interactions with police should end in violence much less death especially at the rate it's happening. It honestly baffles me how anyone could read through all these cases over both threads and not think, ok, this is hosed up and needs to change.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
I think even looking at things on the aggregate should be enough to inspire a great deal of antipathy towards the current system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:No I'm not. I'm arguing that it's basically a show trial guaranteed to indict UNLESS the prosecutor decides to throw it. It's not a trial, it's not guaranteed, the 98-99% doesn't demonstrate that it's a guaranteed indictment because it's 98-99% of the cases that the prosecutor selects. I've said it three times now. Discendo Vox posted:The grand jury isn't a means of determining guilt. That's not what the grand jury is for. In this and most modern contexts, it's to prevent malicious or openly invalid state prosecution. The thing you want to attack is prosecutorial discretion, or McGinty's specific use of prosecutorial discretion in this specific case, which is not the same thing as a grand jury. As Dead Reckoning said, complaining that the grand jury found insufficient means to indict is like complaining that a car's brakes don't make it go faster. Citing high indictment rates at the grand jury doesn't prove anything about grand juries or their use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
It's not really a convincing argument. I made the point before but I guess I wasn't clear, that I believe a prosecutor would be more deterred going after a case due to feeling it didn't stand a chance at a trial, rather than feeling as though it didn't stand a chance at a grand jury. Any case you couldn't get the majority of a grand jury to indict on, despite the permission of illegally gathered evidence, hearsay, and a lack of judicial oversight or any exculpatory evidence, is one that wouldn't stand a chance at a trial anyways. To make a wretched car analogy, it's like having a bridge that 20% of semis smash against, and then pointing to a warning pole in front that 98% of them clear and going "that pole does a great job keeping semis away from the bridge". I think the 98/99% figure can be read multiple ways, and without data covering just how many cases prosecutors did not follow up on, it's presumptuous to claim it's doing much of anything. I mean, otherwise, I've got a tiger warding stone I could sell you; 99% of people carrying it whom are attacked by tigers get mauled to bits, but that's only because only the most killer tigers can resist it's warding power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:It's not really a convincing argument. I made the point before but I guess I wasn't clear, that I believe a prosecutor would be more deterred going after a case due to feeling it didn't stand a chance at a trial, rather than feeling as though it didn't stand a chance at a grand jury. Any case you couldn't get the majority of a grand jury to indict on, despite the permission of illegally gathered evidence, hearsay, and a lack of judicial oversight or any exculpatory evidence, is one that wouldn't stand a chance at a trial anyways. To make a wretched car analogy, it's like having a bridge that 20% of semis smash against, and then pointing to a warning pole in front that 98% of them clear and going "that pole does a great job keeping semis away from the bridge". There's judicial oversight of grand juries, though it's often not direct. They're not meant to prevent cases that wouldn't result in a conviction- part of the point is that there can be a separate, more thorough factfinding process during the period between indictment and trial. Grand juries are an inappropriate check against a thing they are not designed to be a check against. Malicious/baseless prosecution != cases that will not result in a conviction. Different purpose, different standard. If I were to extend your metaphor, the grand jury is statewide ban on unlicensed trucks. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
far less judicial oversight than a trial, what with the whole "distinct from the three branches" precedent. how are they a check against malicious prosecution, in modern context? I figure the whole grand jury proceeding during Whitewater shows they're actually a fairly effective means for enabling malicious prosecution. I don't really know at what point "limited oversight, incredibly lax standards on evidence, and vast prosecutorial discretion" serves as a deterrent factor to anything for the prosecution. What's the downside? They waste their time? i hate car analogies and grand jury stuff is kind of boring; it's like arguing over the role of the electoral college. You can argue over theoretical points and conjecture but I think it's tiring in lieu of just going "just loving look at it, it's stupid" and moving on with our lives. e: vvv yes i agree with all that e2: son of a bitch vox, I liked your exploding truck metaphor better. why you gotta be lame Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
The point is that grand juries are designed to prevent baseless trials, not enable prosecutions when the DA isn't interested. Now, they're terrible at that as well (ham sandwich, etc) but in theory that is the goal - provide a check against an overzealous prosecutor since a trial can be rather ruinous even if there is an eventual acquittal. Grand juries are not designed to bring people to trial against the wishes of prosecutors - especially since prosecutors can decline even to bring a case to grand jury. The decision not to try Loehmann was made long before the grand jury ever convened, and the only reason a grand jury even occurred was so that McGinty had some public cover for his desire to let that murderer off the hook. I'd still argue that the way that McGinty conducted those grand jury proceedings was in bad faith, but the reality is that is unfortunately not illegal. The remedy here is a political one, and if the people of Cuyahoga County re-elect McGinty you can basically just write them off as racist assholes who accept child murder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
I get that you folks are enjoying your circular argument about grand juries, but can we chat a little more about the article I linked a page ago? Because even by police corruption standards, it's pretty remarkable.quote:After years of rampant abuses by undercover Bal Harbour police, the U.S. Justice Department is investigating the millions taken in by the officers who turned a money-laundering sting into a major cash enterprise, spending lavishly on travel and luxury hotels without making a single arrest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's not a trial, it's not guaranteed, the 98-99% doesn't demonstrate that it's a guaranteed indictment because it's 98-99% of the cases that the prosecutor selects. I've said it three times now. Say it as many times as you'd like. It does not make it true. I really think people who haven't served on a grand jury have no idea what they are talking about here. The process is completely slanted towards indictment, even in cases where the accused is likely innocent. Also, it's absolutely a show trial when the prosecutor decides to act as defense. A "show" in that it is supposed to make it look like a fair shot at justice was granted, and a "trial" in that it will serve in lieu of a jury trial when the proescutor throws the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
A question I have is that there are those cases where someone is convicted basically on the testimony of one person and then a bunch of trumped up evidence or nothing much else at all. Did those cases go through the grand jury process or are they not required in every felony conviction? If they are they don't seem like much of a check if bad cases like that can sneak through and if they aren't then why are they so important they can't be changed? The grand jury sounds like it has merit in kind of a naive "the prosecutor is always acting in good faith all the time so he'll only present good evidence" way that a lot of the court system works but in execution it doesn't really feel like much of a check and is also able to be abused in these sorts of cop incidents. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Prosecutors "throwing" grand jury proceedings aren't a defect in grand jury proceedings. It baffles me that there are usually lawyers saying jury nullification unravels the judicial system but it's ok for a DA to do essentially the same thing. I mentioned I was the office manager for a law firm in Miami and there was a defense attorney there, very passionate guy. In his opinion the system is supposed to have a group of your peers at the start and at the very end as a check against not only malicious prosecution but against unjust laws. The GJ as a check against the justice system unfairly prosecuting for personal and political reasons and nullification as a check against unjust laws. He felt the GJ should have both the DA and the persons attorney there to ensure no facts are left out and that what is presented is made clear between "This is what we know" and "This is what we think" and if the defense should be able to have a judge rule if he feels the DA is pesenting bad evidence or otherwise being biased. Maybe it's over the top but he argued regular citizens deciding whether someone may have done something to warrant a trial and the final decision as to guilty or innocent made by regular citizens with no restrictions (in that they can refuse to indict and nullify) was a check against government tyranny. Like an said, he was passionate. I can't justify in my head that a single person has the power to let someone go because he just can is working as intended but I couldn't get a lawyer to say that nullification was allowed without a multi paragraph explanation as to why it undermines the foundations of the system. The DA has the authority no matter how damning the evidence to just go "nope" or if pressured into it can present it any way he wants and there's no check to his decisions but a trial jurist doing the same thing, something they are allowed to do, is a danger to the system itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:It baffles me that there are usually lawyers saying jury nullification unravels the judicial system but it's ok for a DA to do essentially the same thing. I mentioned I was the office manager for a law firm in Miami and there was a defense attorney there, very passionate guy. In his opinion the system is supposed to have a group of your peers at the start and at the very end as a check against not only malicious prosecution but against unjust laws. The GJ as a check against the justice system unfairly prosecuting for personal and political reasons and nullification as a check against unjust laws. He felt the GJ should have both the DA and the persons attorney there to ensure no facts are left out and that what is presented is made clear between "This is what we know" and "This is what we think" and if the defense should be able to have a judge rule if he feels the DA is pesenting bad evidence or otherwise being biased. The only moral prosecution is my prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I can't justify in my head that a single person has the power to let someone go because he just can is working as intended but I couldn't get a lawyer to say that nullification was allowed without a multi paragraph explanation as to why it undermines the foundations of the system. The DA has the authority no matter how damning the evidence to just go "nope" or if pressured into it can present it any way he wants and there's no check to his decisions but a trial jurist doing the same thing, something they are allowed to do, is a danger to the system itself. The defense attorney you spoke to was arguing passionately for a position that benefits themselves. DAs can be removed from office, have to operate within rules, GJs proceedings can be subject to review (the mechanism varies by jurisdiction), and the prosecutor's office usually isn't just one person. The situation you're describing is less a locus of centralized power than the positions of judge, governor or mayor are. Radish posted:A question I have is that there are those cases where someone is convicted basically on the testimony of one person and then a bunch of trumped up evidence or nothing much else at all. Did those cases go through the grand jury process or are they not required in every felony conviction? If they are they don't seem like much of a check if bad cases like that can sneak through and if they aren't then why are they so important they can't be changed? Grand juries aren't required in all jurisdictions- they're required at the federal level. Prosecution misconduct can still be subject to review and punishment. I don't know the details of that process and it's going to vary. Tiler Kiwi posted:far less judicial oversight than a trial, what with the whole "distinct from the three branches" precedent. The form of malicious prosecution that the grand jury was intended as a check for originally was systemic. The best example in the present day is probably Russia's tendency to repeatedly jail dissidents and opposition political figures. The grand jury in whitewater was, I believe, a different, older type of civil investigation grand jury that's basically used to gather the evidence in the first place. It's a relic of a time before prosecutor's offices and I'd be fine with it going away. The intended downside is the state isn't able to seize the person under investigation and lock them away during trial, or run a news campaign about how they're in jail. Tiler Kiwi posted:e2: son of a bitch vox, I liked your exploding truck metaphor better. why you gotta be lame The license version is (a little) more accurate, and in my heart of hearts I am a horrible pedant. See: my avatar. Darth Walrus posted:I get that you folks are enjoying your circular argument about grand juries, but can we chat a little more about the article I linked a page ago? Because even by police corruption standards, it's pretty remarkable. The main series of articles appears to be at this address.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The point is that grand juries are designed to prevent baseless trials, not enable prosecutions when the DA isn't interested. Now, they're terrible at that as well (ham sandwich, etc) but in theory that is the goal - provide a check against an overzealous prosecutor since a trial can be rather ruinous even if there is an eventual acquittal. Grand juries are not designed to bring people to trial against the wishes of prosecutors - especially since prosecutors can decline even to bring a case to grand jury. The decision not to try Loehmann was made long before the grand jury ever convened, and the only reason a grand jury even occurred was so that McGinty had some public cover for his desire to let that murderer off the hook. This is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to argue. A Fancy Bloke posted:Say it as many times as you'd like. It does not make it true. I really think people who haven't served on a grand jury have no idea what they are talking about here. The process is completely slanted towards indictment, even in cases where the accused is likely innocent. Also, it's absolutely a show trial when the prosecutor decides to act as defense. A "show" in that it is supposed to make it look like a fair shot at justice was granted, and a "trial" in that it will serve in lieu of a jury trial when the proescutor throws the case. It was a perfectly valid argument the first time he said it and you've never addressed it or given a reason why its not valid. I'm not sure what special insight you think you have because you haven't offered any perspective through your anecdotes that isn't completely unsurprising to anyone who understands how and why a grand jury operates. If anything the way you present banal details in a manner which suggests you expect them to be novel and scandalizing suggests exactly the opposite: that your grasp of the process you took part in doesn't extend beyond following the instructions you were given. Toasticle posted:It baffles me that there are usually lawyers saying jury nullification unravels the judicial system but it's ok for a DA to do essentially the same thing. I mentioned I was the office manager for a law firm in Miami and there was a defense attorney there, very passionate guy. In his opinion the system is supposed to have a group of your peers at the start and at the very end as a check against not only malicious prosecution but against unjust laws. The GJ as a check against the justice system unfairly prosecuting for personal and political reasons and nullification as a check against unjust laws. He felt the GJ should have both the DA and the persons attorney there to ensure no facts are left out and that what is presented is made clear between "This is what we know" and "This is what we think" and if the defense should be able to have a judge rule if he feels the DA is pesenting bad evidence or otherwise being biased. Vox addressed this already but a DA is an elected official or appointed by an elected official. Asking why its okay for them to exercise this power but not a jury is kind of like asking how we can be okay with legislatures writing laws everyone has to follow but not rounding up my buddies and a bunch of guns and deciding we're going to write a new criminal code in my garage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
In addition to the differing roles of a prosecutor and a jury, the consequences of jury nullification are much greater. If a prosecutor comes out and says he isn't going to file charges because he doesn't feel that a crime was committed, the voters can throw him out and elect a successor that will pursue charges, barring some sort of statute of limitations issue. If a jury decides to acquit because they won't convict a white man for committing crimes against a black citizen, double jeopardy means that there is effectively no remedy. There's also the corrosive issue of allowing defense lawyers to encourage jurors to ignore the law and go with their feelings about the situation, which probably isn't going to benefit the poor and minorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Vox addressed this already but a DA is an elected official or appointed by an elected official. Asking why its okay for them to exercise this power but not a jury is kind of like asking how we can be okay with legislatures writing laws everyone has to follow but not rounding up my buddies and a bunch of guns and deciding we're going to write a new criminal code in my garage. Ok he's elected. It is within his/their power to not file charges. Grand jurors are selected, they can refuse to file charges no matter how obvious everyone thinks guilt is. A trial juror is selected. It is within his or her power to nullify. All three were chosen to do a job and all three have the ability to let even the most obvious looking defendant free if they want. I already know how much you hate it but I'm only speaking from what is allowed within the law, not whether it should or shouldn't be. You have no problems with DAs and members of a GJ using their authority, I have no problem with a trial jury using theirs. And yes the defense attorney was passionate but does that make him wrong? I seem to remember being reminded several hundred times that's what makes a good defense attorney, the prosecution is going to use everything then can within the law to win, so will he. If, and again not arguing if it should, if nullification is something a jury can do within the law, why should judges be allowed to bar attorneys from telling them they can? A GJ can look at a case that would probably take 45 minutes in court and refuse to indict, it's within their authority to do so. A trial juror can refuse to convuct that same defendant but doing so is different from the first to for reasons. And God, yes, everyone knows these guys are elected. But there are more ways to get rid of elected officials and laws than just going oh well, they passed it so well have to wait 4 years to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Ok he's elected. It is within his/their power to not file charges. Grand jurors are selected, they can refuse to file charges no matter how obvious everyone thinks guilt is. A trial juror is selected. It is within his or her power to nullify. All three were chosen to do a job and all three have the ability to let even the most obvious looking defendant free if they want. I already know how much you hate it but I'm only speaking from what is allowed within the law, not whether it should or shouldn't be. You have no problems with DAs and members of a GJ using their authority, I have no problem with a trial jury using theirs. I think Vox's point wasn't the passion, it was the conflict of interest involved with your attorney friend advocating making his job easier. A jury or grand jury is not following the law when it nullifies, that's what nullification means. Nullification is only "allowed" within the law in the sense that there is no way to stop it from happening. A Prosecutor on the other hand is an elected official executing the powers of the office to which he/she has been elected. I have no idea what your last point is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
So you're saying you're not going to refute my point and instead are going to cheerlead and insult? Nice. The fact remains that if a prosecutor fails to indict it's either because the charge is totally outlandish or they deliberately threw the case. Hence, "show trial"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:So you're saying you're not going to refute my point and instead are going to cheerlead and insult? Nice. Your point has been refuted repeatedly, you sticking your fingers in your ears and just repeating the same thing over and over after its been pointed out to you how and why its wrong does not constitute making a new argument. Also, again, that is not what a show trial is. I mean gently caress its not even a trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:The fact remains that if a prosecutor fails to indict it's either because the charge is totally outlandish or they deliberately threw the case. Hence, "show trial"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The DA directly ignored falsified police statements by the officers on the scene, attempted to misconstrue evidence, and then threw a grand jury, immediately after laying bare the fact that he basically wouldn't had tried the case before the grand jury even if the cops had written their guilty admission in the victims own blood on their patrol car. This is irrelevant to my post, which was could you please identify me making the argument that you're attempting to straw man me with? Devor posted:The prosecutor repeatedly made the argument that the Grand Jury's decision not to indict was meaningful, and not just an extension of the prosecutor's decision-making. I meant in this thread as the point I was addressing was Commie claiming he was directing his comments at all the people in this thread making that arguement. Re-reading my post I definitely did not make that clear. edit:also there's a poo poo ton of daylight between "not murder" and "they did the right thing" Jarmak fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I think Vox's point wasn't the passion, it was the conflict of interest involved with your attorney friend advocating making his job easier Doing something that is legal, no matter if in your opinion it's a quirk that shouldn't be there (I have read opinions from both judges and lawyers saying its a feature) is not a conflict of interest. If it's a legal tool of course he's going to use it. quote:A jury or grand jury is not following the law when it nullifies, that's what nullification means. Nullification is only "allowed" within the law in the sense that there is no way to stop it from happening. A Prosecutor on the other hand is an elected official executing the powers of the office to which he/she has been elected. Again, show me what law they aren't following. Jury deliberations are secret, they cannot be required to explain their decision nor can they be punished because a judge felt they made then wrong decision. The decision is theirs and theirs alone, there is no law I've ever been shown that says they must indict or find guilty just because the DA/judge thinks they are guilty. Both sides present their arguments to try and convince them. The fact that it can be used badly is irrelevant. Rice's killer going free was just as egregious. As I've mentioned before it's been used for good, juries refusing to convict people harboring escaped slaves and refusing to convict during prohibition. The latter was juries using that ability to bypass what most felt was an unjust law and society didn't fall apart. quote:I have no idea what your last point is. People keep mentioning DAs are elected like that is some magic charm making them immune until the next election and acting like once elected officials pass a law then oh well, it's the law now. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:edit:also there's a poo poo ton of daylight between "not murder" and "they did the right thing" No, effectively, if they fail to properly execute their jobs as public servants, its murder. They don't get a get out of murder free card for being bad at the whole police thing. Especially since the shooter in this case had a record of being very bad at doing his job. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that the only evidence you have for this assertion is the high indictment rate, and that number is pointless because it doesn't tell us anything about why the rate is so high. In 2014, U.S. Attorneys got 55,966 'Guilty' verdicts/pleas, and 171 'Not Guilty.' (See Table 2A.) That's a 327:1 ratio. Are Federal courts a show trial that only returns a NG when the charge is totally outlandish or the U.S. Attorney deliberately threw the case, or is it more likely that U.S. Attorneys only bring forward prosecutions that they are certain they can win? Are you comparing full trials to Grand Jury trials?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem is that the only evidence you have for this assertion is the high indictment rate, and that number is pointless because it doesn't tell us anything about why the rate is so high. In 2014, U.S. Attorneys got 55,966 'Guilty' verdicts/pleas, and 171 'Not Guilty.' (See Table 2A.) That's a 327:1 ratio. Are Federal courts a show trial that only returns a NG when the charge is totally outlandish or the U.S. Attorney deliberately threw the case, or is it more likely that U.S. Attorneys only bring forward prosecutions that they are certain they can win? just going to use this to say that plea bargaining has become pretty poo poo and should be deprecated
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
Ok thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:The fact that it can be used badly is irrelevant. Rice's killer going free was just as egregious. As I've mentioned before it's been used for good, juries refusing to convict people harboring escaped slaves and refusing to convict during prohibition. The latter was juries using that ability to bypass what most felt was an unjust law and society didn't fall apart. Toasticle posted:People keep mentioning DAs are elected like that is some magic charm making them immune until the next election and acting like once elected officials pass a law then oh well, it's the law now. A Fancy Bloke posted:Are you comparing full trials to Grand Jury trials?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Doing something that is legal, no matter if in your opinion it's a quirk that shouldn't be there (I have read opinions from both judges and lawyers saying its a feature) is not a conflict of interest. If it's a legal tool of course he's going to use it. Do you not understand what nullification is? Its when the Jury thinks the defendant is guilty but refuses to convict anyways, the law they aren't following is the law they are nullifying. By definition nullification is not following the law, it means the jury is nullifying the law. Toasticle posted:People keep mentioning DAs are elected like that is some magic charm making them immune until the next election and acting like once elected officials pass a law then oh well, it's the law now. No? What? Immune to what? Why can't a law be appealed? What the gently caress are you talking about? CommieGIR posted:No, effectively, if they fail to properly execute their jobs as public servants, its murder. They don't get a get out of murder free card for being bad at the whole police thing. The idea that this is a binary thing that goes from "Good job" to "murder" is insane And that's not even getting into situations where someone has the legal right to use force but its not the optimal choice. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, effectively, if they fail to properly execute their jobs as public servants, its murder. They don't get a get out of murder free card for being bad at the whole police thing. This makes perfect sense if you have no idea what murder means in a legal context anywhere
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The idea that this is a binary thing that goes from "Good job" to "murder" is insane Slanderer posted:This makes perfect sense if you have no idea what murder means in a legal context anywhere quote:Under the common law (law originating from custom and court decisions rather than statutes), murder was an intentional killing that was: Y'know what? Just admit it you two. Admit it that you want to justify Tamir Rice's killing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Y'know what? Just admit it you two. Admit it that you want to justify Tamir Rice's killing. Hmm yes you're right, I'm sure those lovely cops believed that they weren't legally justified when they pulled the trigger, you willfully dense piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Hmm yes you're right, I'm sure those lovely cops believed that they weren't legally justified when they pulled the trigger, you willfully dense piece of poo poo Please tell us how they were legally justified in rolling up on a kid from three feet and shooting him through the passenger side window of the cruiser with no attempt to deescalate the situation you dense moron. Not even the US Military has such loose restrictions on Rule of Engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Please tell us how they were legally justified in rolling up on a kid from three feet and shooting him through the passenger side window of the cruiser with no attempt to deescalate the situation you dense moron. Did I say they were justified? No, moron. Were they justified? Of course not, you dumb poo poo. Did they think they were? Of course they did are you an actual poster, or just a markov chain generator seeded by LF rejects? do we even have the technology to automatically generate shitposts such as yours? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 04:27
|
|