When clearly guilty criminals are freed due to improperly collected evidence or other "technicalities," is this good (as a protection of civil rights), or bad (as an injustice)?
I have worked in a prison for 18 years now. Offenders rarely get enough time for the crimes the commit. The criminal justice system is very flawed. It's become much to political and the offenders are taking full advantage of it.
I'd rather have ten guilty suspects go free on technicalities than one innocent person wrongfully imprisoned or convicted. the goal of the judicial system is NOT to get convictions but to uphold the law-- to the letter.
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
Casey Anthony is not valid here. None of the major evidence was mishandled. She was freed because the prosecutor did a terrible job, and did not prove that Casey Anthony was guilty.
She walked free not because of a technicality, but a poor job by the prosecutor. Don't use her case as an example.
Jaxon21- tell that to a parent who lost their daughter because a guilty murderer walked free...
Two words. Casey Anthony.
"Clearly guilty". If you are not a juror on the case, and have not been presented with the evidence and arguments, you are not qualified to make this determination.
This happens way too often
In our society, a person is innocent until proven guilty, so if we don't stick to the established protocols in every case then all citizens rights would be jeopardized. Harsh but true.
agree with king
OJ Simpson. Freed on corrupted evidence. Later tried and jailed. An injustice backed by justice
king, what "loop-holes" and "leniencies" are you referring to? The thrust of this discussion has been about technicalities.
I can't believe the ignorance of law makers who create loopholes for appearant evil people these lawmakers have children growing up in the chaotic world they created
leniency is a slow and steady way to raise crime rates
death penalty should be given to all predators first time offenders or not
tell the families of repeat offender victims about this poll and try explaining loop hole acceptance
"Clearly guilty" & "beyond a reasonable doubt" are not the same. The media is able to establish guilt on a person to sensationalize their broadcasts, and enhance their ratings. But they clearly are not the jurists' nor the judge. 'Tis the best legal system in the free world.
Can me selfless- but if it'll keep at least 100 guilty in jail- LOCK ME UP!
Death row- I want at least 200.
Most democrats got that one right!
Will miracles never cease?!
Anyway- thanks; proves that all hope is not lost!
It's better to have a guilty man walk than an innocent man stay
Mhz40 - Think search and seizure cases where cops found pot but entered without warrants. Clearly guilty, but procedurally wrong.
Casey Anthony is an exception that shouldn't make the rules.
Wow Casey Anthony much?!?!????
Two words Casey Anthony >:(
That would make people pay better attention BB.
I guess I caught the scent of dachshund in the air. Always makes me cranky ... and HUNGRY!
Yeah, ok. You brought me back to reality. Thanks! lol
@BadBadger: Whoa!! Well, I guess that would "tighten" up the game of some officers. Ha ha ha. Does that include the ADA that takes the case, or even the DA? What if it's an honest mistake? I don't know, maybe letting them go free is the best solution for something this complex.
Good or Bad, poor choices. Necessity, yes.
yeah it should say "when people highly suspected of a crime..."
How is someone clearly guilty if the evidence is flawed?
Poor wording for this Q.
Everyone happy with that? Good. Next case.
USA, as a solution to compensating for "clearly guilty" people being released on technicalities, I proposed that anyone found to have mishandled evidence or made a mistake in the case, resulting in dismissal of the charges, be given the same punishment that the freed defendant would have received.
What you have to ask yourself is, "If you were innocent would you be okay with being convicted on insufficient/improper evidence?"
Nicely put, USA. Thanks for serving with integrity.
I think this question could use some clarification. I hate to see guilty prisoners released on technicalities, but what else could be done to compensate for what has occurred? I'm not sure I'm capable of answering that question at this time.
I'm going to say this as someone that is in law enforcement. It is our duty to preserve the integrity of the justice system. If we were to convict people based on intel and evidence that we collected in a manner other than what is allowed by the law, we are defacing the Constitution and the badge.
@mystery, your point of views are irrational and a disgrace to American Ideals laid down by Thomas Jefferson. Please consider something else to pursue as a profession!
Like I said, Mystery, you obviously do not plan on becoming an attorney. You clearly do not understand one of the basic concepts of American criminal law. Oh, and you are one ultra-touchy individual. Get some self-control. It will serve you well in your new career.
Some are reading way too much into this. CLEARLY guilty... Got caught with the weapon in hand, blood all over him, but someone filed a paper wrong. C'mon man...
If you think about what you are saying, it suggests that only minorities have civil rights.
That is not MY concern, maybe yours.but that's the diff, I'm not u...and that's NOT my goal/plan. ur Not sure how it's gonna work? Simple, don't worry about it, b/c it will!
...NO I will NOT defend a guilty man! WTF Is wrong with you or anyone else who wld OR feels the need 2 argue about the "guilty" mans rights?! ...
@bad who are u to tell me what i should or should not be doing with my future career. I dont have to appease to your preferences or the "rules" you feel apply. So everything you said to me was a waste of time . Not sure if your aware but I would have the option to take a case or not; with that said.
Civil rights are not specific to minorities. You are confusing the term with the fact that a movement and an act of that name were designed to allow minorities to have those same rights as everyone else.
Actually. It would not be Civil Rights. It would be Civil Liberties. We are going over this right now in my government class. It would be a protection of civil liberties unless that criminal did something toward or is a minority. In which case it would be civil rights.
Our constitutional rights are more important then any criminal that gets off because of neglect. I am unwilling to ever give up my rights. The police and law makers would abuse their power if it was not for these checks and balances.
It's bad that the criminal walks, but if it didn't happen like that then it would open so many doors for police to be less careful about how they collect evidence and that is a very bad thing.