# 1 of Mr Mr's NO LAW and Little order threads

[MrMrdevincamus]

I have seen people ruined after being charged with a crime but winning winning a case against the state for various offenses such as controlled substances act or DUI etc. Even if they win their case they lose. Five to ten thousand dollars for a lawyer, the missed work for court appearances and or jail time before bond is set can put an average citizen on the street. I am not anti cop, but I am anti 'stupid law enforcement' and I'm against law enforcement when its enforced via a 'biased' method. By the latter I mean it seems blacks and the poor are more likely to be unfairly charged and convicted. What to do? I say the state or Feds should be mandated to pay restitution and damages to the citizen for any case they lose. That may stop biased enforcing and or charging citizens for crimes that they have little or weak evidence. Maybe if this was enacted a trial run using only nonviolent cases ie controlled substance cases or DUIs with no injury could be attempted. Personally I think even capital cases should have something like restitution to the charged if the state loses its case. So what say you all?

 

[Stevicus]

I have seen people ruined after being charged with a crime but winning winning a case against the state for various offenses such as controlled substances act or DUI etc. Even if they win their case they lose. Five to ten thousand dollars for a lawyer, the missed work for court appearances and or jail time before bond is set can put an average citizen on the street. I am not anti cop, but I am anti 'stupid law enforcement' and I'm against law enforcement when its enforced via a 'biased' method. By the latter I mean it seems blacks and the poor are more likely to be unfairly charged and convicted. What to do? I say the state or Feds should be mandated to pay restitution and damages to the citizen for any case they lose. That may stop biased enforcing and or charging citizens for crimes that they have little or weak evidence. Maybe if this was enacted a trial run using only nonviolent cases ie controlled substance cases or DUIs with no injury could be attempted. Personally I think even capital cases should have something like restitution to the charged if the state loses its case. So what say you all?

It might be a stronger disincentive if the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge were required to serve the maximum sentence of whatever crime someone is wrongly charged with. Monetary restitution just means paying someone in taxpayer money, but it doesn't adequately punish those who were responsible for the wrongful accusation.

 

[HonestJoe]

A defendant winning their case doesn’t necessarily mean they were wrongly charged. The decision to charge in most western jurisdictions on only requires that a conviction is likely on the balance of evidence available and there are all sorts of technical, procedural or unpredictable reasons why someone can be found not guilty (sometimes even if they actually are).

There needs to be (and general is) measures and systems in place to address actual examples of wrongful arrest or changes which can lead to direct punishments for the officers and officials involved where appropriate as well as financial compensation (though I’m sure there is plenty of scope for improving them). Accusations in such cases need to follow the same kind of process as the original cases should though. Presuming the officers and officials are guilty of wrongly charging would be no better than presuming the accused is guilty of the initial offence.

 

[HonestJoe]

It might be a stronger disincentive if the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge were required to serve the maximum sentence of whatever crime someone is wrongly charged with.

Why should the arresting officer or the judge be punished for a suspect being wrongfully charged?

 

[Stevicus]

Why should the arresting officer or the judge be punished for a suspect being wrongfully charged?

As a disincentive to making horrible mistakes that can ruin people's lives.

People who hold the power of life and death over others have no business making a mistake.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

It might be a stronger disincentive if the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge were required to serve the maximum sentence of whatever crime someone is wrongly charged with. Monetary restitution just means paying someone in taxpayer money, but it doesn't adequately punish those who were responsible for the wrongful accusation.

I don't not disagree with you. At all. Maybe the prosecutors and his merry men could be made to pay equal to their participation or degree of injury they caused to the accused. Yes, it would be a nightmare to figure out the particulars of such a system but if it could be done 'right' think of the suffering that could eliminated.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Why should the arresting officer or the judge be punished for a suspect being wrongfully charged?

Yeah I get off on a rant having all these thoughts of trying to correct the bad,and some of our judicial system has degenerated into a slo' mo' chaos of attempting to apply 100 year old laws against 21st century aberrations, even though a drunkard is still a drunkard and a thief is still a thief, it just seems the something is not good in our grand systems of governing, which includes making and enforcing law, ie from the president to congress and senate down to the patrol cop. Maybe I experiencing some sort of temporal dissociation, read as refusing to live in the present moment, and instead embracing the good ole days, Oh crap I remember my grand dad expressing the same sentiments!

Anyway...

All in all even with all of its warts and unfairness our capitalistic system of government based on greed still has more good than bad to give to its people....doesn't it?

Sorry for the cryptic moodiness word salad* nature of this reply .... sometimes being down is an unavoidable reality, and you all know me, I love to share the misery, eh? lol !


* Definition of word salad
1 psychology : unintelligible, extremely disorganized speech or writing manifested as a symptom of a mental disorder (such as schizophrenia)

 

[Woberts]

As a disincentive to making horrible mistakes that can ruin people's lives.

People who hold the power of life and death over others have no business making a mistake.

It's not that easy.

 

[Stevicus]

It's not that easy.

I don't suppose it is, but it's just outrageous when you hear of someone being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit. We're supposed to be able to have faith and confidence in the people who are entrusted with the serious responsibility of dispensing justice in our society. We're all human and can all make honest mistakes from time to time, but if there are indications of negligence, incompetence, malice, corruption, etc. - and innocent lives are damaged - then someone should have to pay (and it shouldn't have to be the taxpayers).

 

[columbus]

As a disincentive to making horrible mistakes that can ruin people's lives.

People who hold the power of life and death over others have no business making a mistake.

You aren't going to get perfection out of people.
Police, prosecutors, judges, lawyers, everyone are making judgement calls.
I would be totally good with a review board for accusations of egregious behavior or a pattern of bias. A board with teeth that could and would prosecute public servants that aren't serving the public.
But I wouldn't support handing out taxpayer funds to people that were acquitted, or prosecuting people because they made a judgement call that didn't pan out.
Tom

 

[Stevicus]

You aren't going to get perfection out of people.
Police, prosecutors, judges, lawyers, everyone are making judgement calls.
I would be totally good with a review board for accusations of egregious behavior or a pattern of bias. A board with teeth that could and would prosecute public servants that aren't serving the public.
But I wouldn't support handing out taxpayer funds to people that were acquitted, or prosecuting people because they made a judgement call that didn't pan out.
Tom

But if someone shows that they have bad judgment, then their judgment calls become problematic at best. As I said, we're supposed to be able to have faith and confidence in these people who hold such grave responsibility over the lives of others. We're supposed to be able to trust their judgment and their competence to do their job.

It's just like with a doctor. If he performs the wrong operation on the wrong patient, then that's a pretty major screw up. It's not something that should be easily dismissed with an "oops, nobody's perfect" kind of explanation.

 

[columbus]

It's just like with a doctor. If he performs the wrong operation on the wrong patient, then that's a pretty major screw up. It's not something that should be easily dismissed with an "oops, nobody's perfect" kind of explanation.

This is quite a good illustration.
If a doctor performs the wrong operation on a patient because s/he wasn't paying attention, huge lawsuits ensue.

But if a doctor makes a recommendation for surgery, and the patient dies anyway, it's not malpractice. S/he made a judgement call about what seemed the best thing to do and it turned out badly. If a doctor regularly makes bad judgement calls, or prescribes treatment that tends to make better outcomes for them than the patients, there needs to be an independent review board that can address the issue. But it's judgement calls.

Same as the popo.
Tom

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I don't suppose it is, but it's just outrageous when you hear of someone being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit. We're supposed to be able to have faith and confidence in the people who are entrusted with the serious responsibility of dispensing justice in our society. We're all human and can all make honest mistakes from time to time, but if there are indications of negligence, incompetence, malice, corruption, etc. - and innocent lives are damaged - then someone should have to pay (and it shouldn't have to be the taxpayers).

I agree, and what if the case in question is a capital crime and the DA is seeking the death penalty? The chance of the state murdering an innocent person is the primary reason I am against the DP. I feel that I have blood on my hands if I support the DP when things go horribly wrong either by mistake or design.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have seen people ruined after being charged with a crime but winning winning a case against the state for various offenses such as controlled substances act or DUI etc. Even if they win their case they lose. Five to ten thousand dollars for a lawyer, the missed work for court appearances and or jail time before bond is set can put an average citizen on the street. I am not anti cop, but I am anti 'stupid law enforcement' and I'm against law enforcement when its enforced via a 'biased' method. By the latter I mean it seems blacks and the poor are more likely to be unfairly charged and convicted. What to do? I say the state or Feds should be mandated to pay restitution and damages to the citizen for any case they lose. That may stop biased enforcing and or charging citizens for crimes that they have little or weak evidence. Maybe if this was enacted a trial run using only nonviolent cases ie controlled substance cases or DUIs with no injury could be attempted. Personally I think even capital cases should have something like restitution to the charged if the state loses its case. So what say you all?

It makes things sound as if it's all about money.

 

[Stevicus]

This is quite a good illustration.
If a doctor performs the wrong operation on a patient because s/he wasn't paying attention, huge lawsuits ensue.

But if a doctor makes a recommendation for surgery, and the patient dies anyway, it's not malpractice. S/he made a judgement call about what seemed the best thing to do and it turned out badly. If a doctor regularly makes bad judgement calls, or prescribes treatment that tends to make better outcomes for them than the patients, there needs to be an independent review board that can address the issue. But it's judgement calls.

Same as the popo.
Tom

Although even in the case of recommending surgery, a doctor would still consult with the patient or next of kin and would have to get consent. He/she would presumably outline the risks and the pros/cons of getting surgery or not getting surgery. The doctor would know that there's a chance the patient could die. Likewise, patients and their families have the right to get a second opinion.

I don't think suspects, arrestees, defendants, or their families get that opportunity - at least not with the police. There's no consultation, and the police don't need a suspect's consent before being arrested. So, it goes a bit beyond a mere judgment call.

The real question is why we don't already have enough safeguards and checks and balances within the justice system to prevent and/or deal with these bad judgment calls? As I said, it's about trust and confidence in the system. Not to mention the political fallout if these lawsuits take too much of a bite out of the public treasury.

We may not be able to expect perfection, but at least we should be able to acknowledge and address these flaws and mistakes if and when they come up. Greater transparency and oversight is needed. And justice for those who have been wrongly convicted.

I recall reading a few weeks ago about a groundskeeper for the White Sox who had been locked up for 20 years for a crime he didn't commit. It's simply astonishing to me, not to mention utterly outrageous, that such a thing could happen to this man.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't suppose it is, but it's just outrageous when you hear of someone being railroaded for a crime they didn't commit. We're supposed to be able to have faith and confidence in the people who are entrusted with the serious responsibility of dispensing justice in our society. We're all human and can all make honest mistakes from time to time, but if there are indications of negligence, incompetence, malice, corruption, etc. - and innocent lives are damaged - then someone should have to pay (and it shouldn't have to be the taxpayers).

There is a difference between being railroaded and a mistake. And an even bigger difference between that and someone being found "not guilty". A not guilty verdict only means that not enough evidence was presented to convict someone. It does not mean that they are innocent. Many people that did the crime go to court hoping that there is no enough evidence to convict them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although even in the case of recommending surgery, a doctor would still consult with the patient or next of kin and would have to get consent. He/she would presumably outline the risks and the pros/cons of getting surgery or not getting surgery. The doctor would know that there's a chance the patient could die. Likewise, patients and their families have the right to get a second opinion.

I don't think suspects, arrestees, defendants, or their families get that opportunity - at least not with the police. There's no consultation, and the police don't need a suspect's consent before being arrested. So, it goes a bit beyond a mere judgment call.

The real question is why we don't already have enough safeguards and checks and balances within the justice system to prevent and/or deal with these bad judgment calls? As I said, it's about trust and confidence in the system. Not to mention the political fallout if these lawsuits take too much of a bite out of the public treasury.

We may not be able to expect perfection, but at least we should be able to acknowledge and address these flaws and mistakes if and when they come up. Greater transparency and oversight is needed. And justice for those who have been wrongly convicted.

I recall reading a few weeks ago about a groundskeeper for the White Sox who had been locked up for 20 years for a crime he didn't commit. It's simply astonishing to me, not to mention utterly outrageous, that such a thing could happen to this man.

We do have checks and balances. It is called a "trial". Just because someone was arrested does not mean that they are guilty. It merely means that the officer had reasonable cause to do so. Proving that he did not have reasonable cause could be quite difficult.

 

[Stevicus]

There is a difference between being railroaded and a mistake. And an even bigger difference between that and someone being found "not guilty". A not guilty verdict only means that not enough evidence was presented to convict someone. It does not mean that they are innocent. Many people that did the crime go to court hoping that there is no enough evidence to convict them.

I don't see how this addresses the point I was making. If there are adequate checks and balances in a trial, then how do people get wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit? And when a mistake is made, what recourse does anyone have?

I wouldn't doubt that there may be those who were guilty who managed to "beat the rap," as it were. Maybe some mobsters or celebrities like O.J. had enough money to hire top-notch lawyers to prevail in the court system. That can also undermine confidence in the legal system.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the court system here. I've heard the complaints that the system is overloaded, with staff and attorneys overwhelmed with work. I can see how such a situation can lead to more mistakes. But some cases just seem inexcusable. Not just that a mistake was made, but that it took so long to rectify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see how this addresses the point I was making. If there are adequate checks and balances in a trial, then how do people get wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit? And when a mistake is made, what recourse does anyone have?

I wouldn't doubt that there may be those who were guilty who managed to "beat the rap," as it were. Maybe some mobsters or celebrities like O.J. had enough money to hire top-notch lawyers to prevail in the court system. That can also undermine confidence in the legal system.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the court system here. I've heard the complaints that the system is overloaded, with staff and attorneys overwhelmed with work. I can see how such a situation can lead to more mistakes. But some cases just seem inexcusable. Not just that a mistake was made, but that it took so long to rectify.

The system still is not perfect. There are checks and balances, but expecting perfection is no realistic. We replace it when a better system is found.

 

[Stevicus]

The system still is not perfect. There are checks and balances, but expecting perfection is no realistic. We replace it when a better system is found.

Maybe the checks and balances aren't adequate? I'm not expecting perfection, but greater transparency and oversight doesn't seem too unreasonable.