SavingsTalk.com

taxfilez · 10-31-2007, 07:17 PM

In today's criminal justice system, America's can get as much justice as they can afford. Lets face it, you think OJ would have beat the rap with Public Defenders, innocence requires dollars not proof. Prosecutors dictate to judges thanks to (lawyers) laws giving them extraordinary powers (minimum mandatory sentancing). And juries forced to give up their wages to be bored to death in a court only want to hurry up and get back to work to pay their bills and inflated mortgages . <br />Unless we put in place a paid professional jury system, whereas juries serve at the will of the court, are paid a salary through tax dollars but not the court which removes any possible obligation to serve their master so to speak. Juries therefore have a wider latitute to use common sense and the law rather than emotion to dispense justice.<br />With prison populations exploding with over 73 percent of non-violent white collor crime, and minor drug offenses, we are spending more on prisons than the war in Iraq<br />

Vietleeurorse · 10-31-2007, 07:17 PM

Actually, I disagree. It depends on how good your lawyer is, not how much money they are being paid. There are just as many good public defenders as there are high paid attorneys. In fact, PDs tend to have much more court room experience, know and have the respect of the judges, and actually know how to persuade a jury. Money didn't save O.J. Simpson, fame did. And I have actually found, in talking to jurors after trial, that the jurors actually do care and listen to the evidence. Believe it or not, some even see it as their civic duty to serve jury duty. Yes, there are some who don't want to be there and will do anything possible to keep from sitting on the case, but that's usually not the case.

TaxGuy · 10-31-2007, 07:17 PM

After working in the criminal justice system for a period of time it is difficult not to become jaded... not to assume that the individual charged is not part of the 95% guilty -- and that is when you are a defense lawyer whose financial well being is tied to those people you are representing. I would certainly hate to stand trial before a paid professional jury.

By the way, for the last 10 years, the numbers of violent crimes have been dramatically reduced. If we want to really reduce substantially the numbers in prison... what we need to do is find a way to solve the US's drug problem. The war on drugs has become a war that has been only successful against the little people.

taxguru · 10-31-2007, 07:17 PM

There is so much that is wrong with your statements (Rant) that it is hard to tell where to begin.

First, lets deal with OJ. OJ was put on trial in So. Calif, a state that holds its celebrities in very high esteem. One of the reasons that the criminal case ended up the way it did was due to the many errors made by the Prosecutors. In the Civil case, again held in Calif. he was held guilty and still has the large amount over his head. You cannot judge the entire US criminal justice system and jury system by this one case --that is an illogical argument.

Your theory that innocence requires money not proof is wrong. Yes, an attorney (you know one who wants to get paid for his/her work, just like you do) is required for any trial. Why, not due to money, because the voters have demanded that laws be added/changed and therefore the legal system has become extremely complex. If our only laws were just the 10 commandments any person could represent you incourt.

Prosecutors dictate to judges??? In what world? Not true. Judges if elected may possibly be influenced by their constitutents -- maybe. Judges appointed, maybe beholden to the person or political party that put them in office.

How you get lawyers involved in this is beyond me. Lawyers DO NOT dictate to judges, it is the opposite. You cite the mandatory sentencing as giving "extraordinary power" to the judge. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Mandatory sentencing limits what a judge can do. Mandatory sentencing comes from laws passed by those people the voters elect -- not judges, not lawyers.

Juries being bored to death ---- hmmm never seen that happen. When a person is questioned prior to being put on a jury they can express their unhappyness in not being able to be at work. No lawyer wants an uninterested unhappy juror on their trial -- didn't help the prosecutors in the OJ trial to keep unhappy jurors for so long.

Paid professional jury system. Paid by whom? Republican part, democratic party, defendant, plaintiff??? Who does your paid professional jury system get to thank for their money? Who does the jury system represent?

Again, juries are not allowed to make decisions that are beyond what is put before them in court. You can call that common sense if you want, it is the law. Your argument goes from bored to death jurors to emotional jurors --- sorry can't have it both ways.

Obviously you had a brush with the criminal justice system and lost.

alien · 10-31-2007, 07:17 PM

Ok...so many things wrong with this.

1. Innocence is NEVER determined in a court of law. Guilty or Not Guilty is.
2. There are plenty of expensive lawyers that are crap. There are plenty of public defenders that are great.
3. As long as the case is long enough...you are compensated for serving on a Jury.
4. Prosecutors dictate to Judges??? The Judges are bound by laws not by prosecution instruction. Minimum and maximum sentances are legislation and initiatiated by politicians NOT prosecutors...the prosecutors argue the laws created by politicians.
5. A professional jury system defies the whole concept of a jury of your peers...people serving as professional jurors, in time, would get jaded as well...the idea is that the laymen is a fresh mind seeing only the facts of this one case in question.
6. I do not know where you get your 73 % statistic but it is very wrong.

taxguru · 10-31-2007, 07:17 PM

As can be seen by the answers so far, the biggest problem both in society and the jury system, is people don't take the time to read and understand everything before making statements.

Had several of the contributors taken the time to actually read the person's detailed summary attached to the question, they would have realized the rebutals they had are not only contrary to what was actual stated, but pretty ridicious.

A study came out two weeks that realized what most educated people already knew, that people perceptions are taken as fact even when people are given the true facts. Its sad when we live in a country that society in it's rush to get things over with right now, have the attention span of a two year old.

Its funny that the people who spend the least of amount of time reading before they respond, often call what did read a "rant". I'm not really sure if its because they don't understand the content or just find it easier to disagree because they want to be disagreeable.

With the age of so-called reality TV maybe people like being on jurys because its their 15 mins of fame or power trip.

10-31-2007, 07:17 PM	#1
taxfilez Greenhorn Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28 Rep Power: 5	Why have a jury system, when prosecutors are more powerful than judges jurys are dumb and innocence needs $$$$ In today's criminal justice system, America's can get as much justice as they can afford. Lets face it, you think OJ would have beat the rap with Public Defenders, innocence requires dollars not proof. Prosecutors dictate to judges thanks to (lawyers) laws giving them extraordinary powers (minimum mandatory sentancing). And juries forced to give up their wages to be bored to death in a court only want to hurry up and get back to work to pay their bills and inflated mortgages . <br />Unless we put in place a paid professional jury system, whereas juries serve at the will of the court, are paid a salary through tax dollars but not the court which removes any possible obligation to serve their master so to speak. Juries therefore have a wider latitute to use common sense and the law rather than emotion to dispense justice.<br />With prison populations exploding with over 73 percent of non-violent white collor crime, and minor drug offenses, we are spending more on prisons than the war in Iraq<br />

10-31-2007, 07:17 PM	#2
Vietleeurorse Greenhorn Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 28 Rep Power: 3	Why have a jury system, when prosecutors are more powerful than judges jurys are dumb and innocence needs $$$$ Actually, I disagree. It depends on how good your lawyer is, not how much money they are being paid. There are just as many good public defenders as there are high paid attorneys. In fact, PDs tend to have much more court room experience, know and have the respect of the judges, and actually know how to persuade a jury. Money didn't save O.J. Simpson, fame did. And I have actually found, in talking to jurors after trial, that the jurors actually do care and listen to the evidence. Believe it or not, some even see it as their civic duty to serve jury duty. Yes, there are some who don't want to be there and will do anything possible to keep from sitting on the case, but that's usually not the case.

10-31-2007, 07:17 PM	#3
TaxGuy Greenhorn Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20 Rep Power: 5	Why have a jury system, when prosecutors are more powerful than judges jurys are dumb and innocence needs $$$$ After working in the criminal justice system for a period of time it is difficult not to become jaded... not to assume that the individual charged is not part of the 95% guilty -- and that is when you are a defense lawyer whose financial well being is tied to those people you are representing. I would certainly hate to stand trial before a paid professional jury. By the way, for the last 10 years, the numbers of violent crimes have been dramatically reduced. If we want to really reduce substantially the numbers in prison... what we need to do is find a way to solve the US's drug problem. The war on drugs has become a war that has been only successful against the little people.

10-31-2007, 07:17 PM	#4
taxguru Greenhorn Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 5	Why have a jury system, when prosecutors are more powerful than judges jurys are dumb and innocence needs $$$$ There is so much that is wrong with your statements (Rant) that it is hard to tell where to begin. First, lets deal with OJ. OJ was put on trial in So. Calif, a state that holds its celebrities in very high esteem. One of the reasons that the criminal case ended up the way it did was due to the many errors made by the Prosecutors. In the Civil case, again held in Calif. he was held guilty and still has the large amount over his head. You cannot judge the entire US criminal justice system and jury system by this one case --that is an illogical argument. Your theory that innocence requires money not proof is wrong. Yes, an attorney (you know one who wants to get paid for his/her work, just like you do) is required for any trial. Why, not due to money, because the voters have demanded that laws be added/changed and therefore the legal system has become extremely complex. If our only laws were just the 10 commandments any person could represent you incourt. Prosecutors dictate to judges??? In what world? Not true. Judges if elected may possibly be influenced by their constitutents -- maybe. Judges appointed, maybe beholden to the person or political party that put them in office. How you get lawyers involved in this is beyond me. Lawyers DO NOT dictate to judges, it is the opposite. You cite the mandatory sentencing as giving "extraordinary power" to the judge. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Mandatory sentencing limits what a judge can do. Mandatory sentencing comes from laws passed by those people the voters elect -- not judges, not lawyers. Juries being bored to death ---- hmmm never seen that happen. When a person is questioned prior to being put on a jury they can express their unhappyness in not being able to be at work. No lawyer wants an uninterested unhappy juror on their trial -- didn't help the prosecutors in the OJ trial to keep unhappy jurors for so long. Paid professional jury system. Paid by whom? Republican part, democratic party, defendant, plaintiff??? Who does your paid professional jury system get to thank for their money? Who does the jury system represent? Again, juries are not allowed to make decisions that are beyond what is put before them in court. You can call that common sense if you want, it is the law. Your argument goes from bored to death jurors to emotional jurors --- sorry can't have it both ways. Obviously you had a brush with the criminal justice system and lost.

10-31-2007, 07:17 PM	#5
alien Piggy Bank Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 63 Rep Power: 5	Why have a jury system, when prosecutors are more powerful than judges jurys are dumb and innocence needs $$$$ Ok...so many things wrong with this. 1. Innocence is NEVER determined in a court of law. Guilty or Not Guilty is. 2. There are plenty of expensive lawyers that are crap. There are plenty of public defenders that are great. 3. As long as the case is long enough...you are compensated for serving on a Jury. 4. Prosecutors dictate to Judges??? The Judges are bound by laws not by prosecution instruction. Minimum and maximum sentances are legislation and initiatiated by politicians NOT prosecutors...the prosecutors argue the laws created by politicians. 5. A professional jury system defies the whole concept of a jury of your peers...people serving as professional jurors, in time, would get jaded as well...the idea is that the laymen is a fresh mind seeing only the facts of this one case in question. 6. I do not know where you get your 73 % statistic but it is very wrong.

SavingsTalk.com

Your guide to saving money and making smart investments!