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.
Sorry it too so long to respond, I found it Necessary, to forward your comments to a friend of mine who has been an attorney for over 40 years, and is the lead attorney at a prestigious law firm in Virginia, and get his comments.
1. He states he has complete knowledge of the criteria necessary to be admitted to law school, and is not only qualified to take the bar exam, has in fact taken it, and passed it. He also stated that In the Commonwealth of Virginia, you do NOT have to have a Law Degree, nor do you have to be admitted to law school to pass the Bar, and become a Jurist, a Practicing attorney and a member of the bar.
California is different. One does not have to go to law school, but passing the state bar exam is mandatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt
2. He also states he has a LOT of knowledge concerning the subject, however human nature itself dictates that the objective you seek, cannot be met unless human nature itself changes. Since in the thousands of years of documented history we have increased our knowledge, human nature itself remains unchanged. The idea of working towards the goal of never requiring both a prosecutor, and a defense advocate is commendable, it's certainly not a goal attainable in our lifetime.
quoted-
"Our method of due process is based on "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", requires that someone must prove both actus reas, and mens rae, while the accused has a advocate or jurist on their behalf to either prove that either both requirements are not met, or that extenuating circumstances mitigate the crime or action, or prevent the accused from comprehending the crime, making them mentally incapable of mens rae."
(He also put in a note for me since I am not a legal person, that these concepts are for criminal proceedings and that the MENS RAE is not a factor in a civil proceeding, in MOST cases, unless a punitive award is part of the proceeding.)
Your friend is discussing criminal intent and some of the elements which the prosecution must prove in order to secure a criminal conviction.
Attorneys are neccesary to protect the rights of defendants in the above manner and in many other ways, however that has nothing to do with my seeking a world where prosecutors do not exist.
I am advocating for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, up to and possibly including disposing of it altogether.
"You you seem to suggest that the licensed driver be punished less harshly - after all, (s)he didn't commit a crime. Why is that?"
You assume a lot.
YOU are the one who introduced the the revoked drivers license scenario.
I am honestly trying to figure out how you arrived at your opinion.
Quote:
"Intent bloody matters. Has to" I agree. If you INTEND on committing a crime, you should be held responsible for any that that happens as a result of you committing that crime.
It doesn't matter if you intended to kill a family by running into them with your car or whether you intended to drive without a license and accidentally ran into them? The state should punish equally harshly?
Quote:
"Part of living in a civilized society is that we drop our personal claim on revenge and let the impartial system of The Law mete out punishment." Where did I EVER propose anything different?
When you started down on delving into what the families felt. It's really not material.
Quote:
NO where have I mention accidents. Have I?
You responded to a scenario (driving with an expired license, unintentionally causing a death) that seems to fall under the definition.
Quote:
I think I have made myself pretty clear on the subject.
Not really, but that's OK. I am sorta losing interest anyway.
Mandatory sentencing - like zero tolerance - is a dumb idea. You cannot legislate every nuance of a crime. That is why judges need to be given discretion in sentencing.
[quote=filihok;28396093How is the prosecutor solely responsible for this?
Why is the jury not held responsible?
The defender?
The judge?
All played a role.
By holding any party responsible for we risk a less efficient justice system in the future. Which will result in more guilty parties being acquitted. How does this benefit society?[/quote]
Key word you ignored: multiple. Different juries, judges, ONE prosecutor.
How is the prosecutor solely responsible for this?
Why is the jury not held responsible?
The defender?
The judge?
All played a role.
By holding any party responsible for we risk a less efficient justice system in the future. Which will result in more guilty parties being acquitted. How does this benefit society?
My vote was for "none" but I have to defend the jury here in many cases as often times they are not allowed to hear all of the facts but yet are expected to make a decision.
California is different. One does not have to go to law school, but passing the state bar exam is mandatory.
Your friend is discussing criminal intent and some of the elements which the prosecution must prove in order to secure a criminal conviction.
Attorneys are neccesary to protect the rights of defendants in the above manner and in many other ways, however that has nothing to do with my seeking a world where prosecutors do not exist.
I am advocating for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system, up to and possibly including disposing of it altogether.
How is California different than what I posted? In Va, one doesn't need to go to law school. Isn't that what YOU said, so how can that be different?
Yes, he is discussing criminal intent and elements which prosecution must prove. That's the point. without a justice system, then it's up to the citizens to mete out justice. Is that what you want?
Sorry, without a justice system, everyone will take matters in their own hands, kinda like the wild west and hangings, all over again. That's NOT what we want to go back to.
Are there any crimes for which you think the death penalty should be mandatory, like in most other countries? Or in lieu of that if you are on a jury you will give the death penalty when a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of these crimes?????
Mandatory sentences of any kind are a bad idea. They remove the element of human judgement from the process and turn the legal system into a mindless machine. If you're headed towards the possibility of ending someone life, you don't switch on the automatic pilot.
I M O, capital punishment should be totally abolished in the USA. What should take the place of capital punishment would be IMO life imprisonment at hard labor, graphic photos of the crime scene the person created posted in his or her cell so the perpetrator can be constantly reminded of the horrific crime they committed, with a lifetime of bologna sandwiches and watered down soup and water.
No televisions, no work out rooms, no basketball or sports, no more coddling of criminals.
My reasoning for keeping a alleged criminal alive would be due to the fact that innocent people have been imprisoned and executed in the past, and later exonerated through DNA testing or witnesses recanting their statements.
If anyone dies BECAUSE YOU committed a crime, you die.
If you are responsible for taking someones life, you forfeit yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I am honestly trying to figure out how you arrived at your opinion.
It doesn't matter if you intended to kill a family by running into them with your car or whether you intended to drive without a license and accidentally ran into them? The state should punish equally harshly?
When you started down on delving into what the families felt. It's really not material.
You responded to a scenario (driving with an expired license, unintentionally causing a death) that seems to fall under the definition.
Not really, but that's OK. I am sorta losing interest anyway.
"I am honestly trying to figure out how you arrived at your opinion.
"If anyone dies BECAUSE YOU committed a crime, you die.
If you are responsible for taking someones life, you forfeit yours" I can't make it any clearer then that!
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.
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.
