Law and justice.

[Taltarzac725]

Wonder how many people have been burned badly by the US justice system? In law school both at BYU and then later at the University of Minnesota, they slammed into us law students that law has very little to do with the truth nor with justice. It is about solving disputes and trying to determine the probability the such and such facts support contentions provided by whatever attorneys are involved. In many cases, those that involve plea bargaining, not even that is the standard. They just might want to get through a case quickly by having a weak willed defendant make a confession. The person could even be innocent in that situation.

A law professor at the U of Minnesota Irving Younger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Younger had even gone so far as to say that trials are more theater than trying to get at the facts. It is the lawyer who weaves the best story that wins. And, that often is determined by how much money one side has against the other.

I also believe that the lawyers and law firms involved in the cases play a huge part in determining who wins as it seems that the lawyer with the best contacts to the social circles of the judge wins.

What do you think about all this? I was a student attorney in Minnesota in some cases where it seemed that if the lawyer was from an Ivy League school as well as a top law firm in an urban setting, that the judge, especially if from a rural area, would bend over backwards to see the story in terms of how the very well connected lawyer made his or her argument.

Do not get me wrong, juries are supposed to offset very clever attorneys. And, I believe very strongly in a well educated jury pool but then very careful monitoring of the jury so that there quest for the facts is not polluted by other influences. Just see it as extremely important that before people are put into juries they are well educated about the tricks and other manipulations by lawyers.

One of the reasons I wanted to become a law librarian was because of this. The access to common-sense information for everyday citizens.

[donb9006]

We need to go back to intent. The intent of the law and the intent of a transgressor.

I hear the average person commits 3 felonies a day that they don't realize they're committing.

We need to get politics out of the legal system, unfortunately, the political system and the legal system are run by the same people...lawyers.

In many cases...you're innocent until proven poor. You SHOULD be able to defend yourself.

I'm in the middle of a divorce...I'll let you know IF there's any justice.

Spread the word of "jury nullification". It's when the jury doesn't think the law is just...many many many are not.

[nhgolfer1]

In my first rental here in TV I sent $700 to a lady to secure a rental and she cashed my check and there was no rental. I filed a complaint with the local sherrif and after a bunch of hem and hawing I got a letter that my case was put in the inactive file. How does justice work in this case.
I reported this on talk of the villages 2years ago.

[billethkid]

The so called "letter of the law" is either used by or hidden behind or abused by lawyers.......

There is something about a profession that has an ability to side with or represent villains and the like that make me wonder about the integrity of some.

Yes I understand the innocent until proven innocent mirage.

An orchestrated outcome played by the more talented and expensive players.

Just look at celebrity abuse of the law and what they get away with......some even murder!

btk

[BarryRX]

Our justice system is flawed. I have heard it said that it is the second worst system in the world. The worst system in the world is everybody elses! Just think how beautiful the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" is. In many other countries, anyone can accuse you of something and then the burden is on you to prove your innocence. Here, if you are accused of a serious crime, the charges must first be heard by a grand jury who will decide if there is sufficient evidence to indict. Then, the prosecution must prove there case. What sometimes happens in our system is that people who commit crimes go free. I'll leave the debate as to whether it is better to let a guilty person go free or to convict an innocent party to others. What rubs me the wrong way is that rich people and poor people seem to get different justice. I saw it when I was a pharmacist. Some poor kid gets caught with drugs on him he is labeled a junkie and he goes to jail. A pharmacist or nurse or doctor get caught stealing drugs, and they are labeled an "impaired professional" and are allowed to enter a treatment program and eventually get their license back. Lady Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold and our justice should not be income related.

[ijusluvit]

The abuses are everywhere and often publicized relentlessly by a media far more interested in stirring up emotions than giving cold facts about our system and the times it works.

Sure, "if the glove don't fit, you gotta acquit."

Yes, there's a judge in West Va who has signed every one of the hundreds of disability claims presented to him by a group of lawyers who got them from a few doctors who are part of the little closed group. Many folks who know the scam admit even the majority of cases do not really deserve Social Security benefits.

But the above poster is correct. How much of the rest of the world says you are innocent until proven guilty and tries very hard to operate accordingly when making legal judgements.

I think we are very lucky.

[redwitch]

There is no question our justice system is seriously flawed. It is, however, one of the best systems in the world. We can and do change unjust laws. We can be tried by our supposed peers (as one attorney I know stated, "You have to be incredibly dumb to get on a jury -- most know how to get off serving.")

I do know of cases where people whose only crime was being married to someone. One woman was given 15 years on conspiracy charges even though she was divorced from her husband, lived in Las Vegas while her husband lived in Chicago and she refused to testify against him since she knew nothing. All she would have had to do was to learn the script (federal court). She refused; ex-husband was convicted of nothing; I think she got out two or three years ago. Hopefully, this example is an extreme case of justice being denied, but things like this do and have happened.

Poverty almost guarantees a prison sentence even if innocent. Public defenders are not there to try cases, they're there to plea bargain -- better that an innocent be sent away for 5 years than 30 seems to be the logic. ADAs would rather send someone guilty away for 5 years than risk losing the case and the defendant get nothing (guilt or innocence is irrelevant).

Okay, I'm getting preachy, so gonna shut up for now.

But I still stand on the side of it ain't perfect, sometimes it ain't even good but it's a heck of a lot better than what most others have and we are willing to try and fix it.