U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should there be exceptions made to the DJ law in extreme cases?
yes 13 40.63%
no 19 59.38%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2011, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,160,240 times
Reputation: 9170

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
It's you husband, wife, daughter (fill in the blank) which was murdered. John Smith is arrested, tried, and found not guilty.

John Smith walks out of the courthouse, gets on national news and says, "You idiots. I did it." Then leads the police to your daughters body. You, are standing there, crying, and John Smith flips you off, laughs in your face, turns and walks away.

I'm sure your "founding fathers" t-shirt would comfort you well...
Appealing to emotion isn't going to get us anywhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2011, 05:02 PM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,755,376 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
It's you husband, wife, daughter (fill in the blank) which was murdered. John Smith is arrested, tried, and found not guilty.

John Smith walks out of the courthouse, gets on national news and says, "You idiots. I did it." Then leads the police to your daughters body. You, are standing there, crying, and John Smith flips you off, laughs in your face, turns and walks away.

I'm sure your "founding fathers" t-shirt would comfort you well...
I detest this argument.

Justice is not and should not be based on the emotions of victims. Justice should be based on fairness, logic and law.

The concept of fairness and law should not be based on emotion either. Emotion is famously unreliable in terms of meting out true justice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,659,438 times
Reputation: 3967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
I detest this argument.

Justice is not and should not be based on the emotions of victims. Justice should be based on fairness, logic and law.

The concept of fairness and law should not be based on emotion either. Emotion is famously unreliable in terms of meting out true justice.
Of course you do. You detest everything. Until it happens to you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 07:16 PM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,755,376 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Of course you do. You detest everything. Until it happens to you.

First of all, you don't know me so you do not know what I detest or not. Secondly, what exactly is your argument?

My argument is that victims and their families should not make the law or dispense justice for several reasons. Emotions run high (for obvious reasons) and emotions do not belong in a court of justice. True justice is fair and logical.

I detest the notion that we should depend on the people in the most vulnerable position of their lives to make the right decisions regarding the legal process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,160,240 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Of course you do. You detest everything. Until it happens to you.
If I was the family member of a victim in that situation, I'd be looking to turn someone into human target practice. I don't think we'd want to start creating laws based off such an emotional state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 09:39 PM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,755,376 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
If I was the family member of a victim in that situation, I'd be looking to turn someone into human target practice. I don't think we'd want to start creating laws based off such an emotional state.
Exactly David.

OF COURSE, if my child, husband, mother, sister, best friend, etc were murdered I'd want to KILL the person responsible.

But that is not a reasonable, logical reaction in terms of justice and civilized society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 03:40 AM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,813 posts, read 3,659,438 times
Reputation: 3967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
First of all, you don't know me so you do not know what I detest or not. Secondly, what exactly is your argument?

My argument is that victims and their families should not make the law or dispense justice for several reasons. Emotions run high (for obvious reasons) and emotions do not belong in a court of justice. True justice is fair and logical.

I detest the notion that we should depend on the people in the most vulnerable position of their lives to make the right decisions regarding the legal process.
My arguement is simple: It's easy to sit back, in your recliner, sucking on a few cocktails (see this is something called a general statement) and say how our "founding fathers" put into place double jeopardy for a reason. Of course they did. That wasn't and isn't the point of the thread. The issue is whether or not it should be revisited.

Now to my original post: Sit there all high and mighty and talk about fairness, equality, laws, rules, civilized society, when it is YOUR kid whacked on the street and you find out, AFTER the trial, the suspect is guilty. He admits it and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Until it happens TO YOU personally, it's easy to have a nice, little quaint outlook on things. You have no idea what you are talking about, except to read a few books and watch crime dramas on tv. You don't deal with the 12 yr old daughter, of the murder victim, who grows up to be a drunk, drug abusing prostitute, because she watched her dads brains blown all over her face. You don't deal with wife, who now becomes a falling down drunk, loses her job, loses the house, has the kids taken away, etc.

It's easy to sit home. Warm. Comfortable in your snuggly little shoes and pass judgement on people making "emotional" statements.

Yes. Double jeopardy SHOULD be lifted in extreme cases, such as the one I originally posted. I've seen far too many people get away with murder and other crimes, only not to be able to be tried again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 04:47 AM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,755,376 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
My arguement is simple: It's easy to sit back, in your recliner, sucking on a few cocktails (see this is something called a general statement) and say how our "founding fathers" put into place double jeopardy for a reason. Of course they did. That wasn't and isn't the point of the thread. The issue is whether or not it should be revisited.

Now to my original post: Sit there all high and mighty and talk about fairness, equality, laws, rules, civilized society, when it is YOUR kid whacked on the street and you find out, AFTER the trial, the suspect is guilty. He admits it and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Until it happens TO YOU personally, it's easy to have a nice, little quaint outlook on things. You have no idea what you are talking about, except to read a few books and watch crime dramas on tv. You don't deal with the 12 yr old daughter, of the murder victim, who grows up to be a drunk, drug abusing prostitute, because she watched her dads brains blown all over her face. You don't deal with wife, who now becomes a falling down drunk, loses her job, loses the house, has the kids taken away, etc.

It's easy to sit home. Warm. Comfortable in your snuggly little shoes and pass judgement on people making "emotional" statements.

Yes. Double jeopardy SHOULD be lifted in extreme cases, such as the one I originally posted. I've seen far too many people get away with murder and other crimes, only not to be able to be tried again.



And this is the EXACT reason why people NOT involved with the case should not be involved in making laws on how to best punish criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 08:47 AM
 
28,206 posts, read 20,755,376 times
Reputation: 16599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
And this is the EXACT reason why people NOT involved with the case should not be involved in making laws on how to best punish criminals.
LOL Wow. That sentence is wrong!

It should say:

And this is the EXACT reason why people NOT involved with the case should be involved in making laws on how to best punish criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 09:00 AM
 
9,205 posts, read 9,280,929 times
Reputation: 28857
Default The Real Price of Freedom

Quote:
My arguement is simple: It's easy to sit back, in your recliner, sucking on a few cocktails (see this is something called a general statement) and say how our "founding fathers" put into place double jeopardy for a reason. Of course they did. That wasn't and isn't the point of the thread. The issue is whether or not it should be revisited.

Now to my original post: Sit there all high and mighty and talk about fairness, equality, laws, rules, civilized society, when it is YOUR kid whacked on the street and you find out, AFTER the trial, the suspect is guilty. He admits it and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Until it happens TO YOU personally, it's easy to have a nice, little quaint outlook on things. You have no idea what you are talking about, except to read a few books and watch crime dramas on tv. You don't deal with the 12 yr old daughter, of the murder victim, who grows up to be a drunk, drug abusing prostitute, because she watched her dads brains blown all over her face. You don't deal with wife, who now becomes a falling down drunk, loses her job, loses the house, has the kids taken away, etc.

It's easy to sit home. Warm. Comfortable in your snuggly little shoes and pass judgement on people making "emotional" statements.

Yes. Double jeopardy SHOULD be lifted in extreme cases, such as the one I originally posted. I've seen far too many people get away with murder and other crimes, only not to be able to be tried again.
As usual, Phil, an excellent argument.

This is why I disagree. I don't think we can cast this issue in simple terms like "should a guilty criminal be allowed to go free because a jury made a mistake".

This is issue, this argument, is about something much more fundamental. Its about how much power the citizens of a country are willing to give the state to deal with a problem like crime. That answer may not be an absolute. It may vary depending on how serious the problem of crime (and particularly violent crime) is perceived to be in an area.

I do fear an "all powerful state". If we can try someone a second time for a crime can we try them a third time? How about about a fourth time because after the third time someone in their neighborhood testifies that they allegedly confessed to the crime? Should this ability to retry criminals be limited to the offense of murder? How about embezzlement? How about concealing an illegal campaign donation? What are the serious crimes? How do we decide what they are? What happens if someone is just "unpopular" and an elected prosecutor chooses to pick on him? Is the state responsible for his defense costs when he is acquitted a second time?

I think the Founding Fathers got this one right. The fact that the state gets one shot at trying to obtain a guilty verdict in a case not only limits government powers, it encourages a prosecutor to get good evidence and put on the best case that he can.

Freedom may be an abstract ideal that some choose to make light of. I don't scoff at it at all because I've actually had family members in the armed services who died defending that idea. I think the notion of "freedom" becomes more real for people who have some "skin in the game". It must always be guarded. It must never be taken for granted.

Many people go through life oblivious to the notion that for something like freedom to exist that there must be a "cost" or a "price that has to be paid". That cost exists and it is very real. It is reflected in higher levels of crime than that which exists in Totalitarian societies. The comments you make about the harm to crime victims is an example of how high that cost may be at times. Whatever, the naziis and communists did wrong, I doubt that street crime was too much of a problem for them. Our streets are less safe from criminals because of our Bill of Rights. However, we need not go to sleep every night fearing what our own government may do to us.

While I favor keeping the double jeopardy clause, I'm well aware there is a cost to doing so. I think the price is high, but worth it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top