Search This Blog

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Common sense methods of ensuring justice


The most recent post before this one, was about our justice system, which is based almost entirely on random luck. This post is about common sense methods of decreasing the element of luck and increasing the element of justice. Take two board games, backgammon, and chess. They each have their element of skill but only one of them also has a massive contingent of random chance. If you roll dice, spin a wheel, flip a coin, shuffle a deck, draw a name out of a bucket, then you've just increased the element of chance. For Heaven's sake, how on Earth does any element of luck ever belong in a courtroom? A court case should be more like chess, less like backgammon.

The biggest problem with our criminal justice system is the people who run it, starting with the judge. Here we have a person who unilaterally decides what can or cannot be entered into evidence. Who unilaterally decides what question can or cannot be asked or answered, who unilaterally decides whether to instruct the jury to ignore and discount a statement or piece of evidence after they are already aware of it. "The jury will ignore the witness's testimony."

The judge shouldn't be allowed to limit either evidence or testimony. Why not allow the prosecution and the defense to bring their entire case? The judge should only act as a referee limiting each side to a set amount of time. The seriousness of the charge should determine how much time is set aside for each side to present their case. Neither the prosecution nor the defense should be allowed to "object." Let each side present their entire set of testimony and evidence. This ought to be common sense. There's no reason except chicanery and deceit to limit one or the other side's case.

Ask yourself this question: if your child does something wrong, or you simply suspect them of having done something wrong, before you question them about the incident ... do you read them their Miranda rights? Do you offer them legal council? Do you have a silly and time consuming procedure of grand jury indictment, arraignment, trial, sentencing, appeals, et cetera? It's not necessary for justice. Only getting the truth is necessary.

Ask yourself this question: Don't you wish you had a polygraph machine and the expertise to use it? I know I do! Oh? Why yes junior. Of course I believe you. If you say you didn't eat ALL the cookies, then of course I believe you. You say you only had the one cookie, but just to be sure, please sit down in this chair and allow me to hook up a blood pressure cuff and these little galvanometers to your fingers.

The fact that a lie detector test's results cannot be entered into evidence is injustice. The fact that a witness's testimony that they overheard something incriminating from someone who was not the defendant yet this "hearsay" cannot be entered into evidence because it's "hearsay" is injustice. The fact is—and you know in your heart that this is true—the only purpose for all this complicated obfuscation, procedure, and just plain silly dancing around in our justice system, is simply job security for the ones employed within the justice system. The actors in our grand farce of a justice system learn all the ins and outs of obfuscation, distraction, and deceit. They study old cases as though a single one of them mattered as much as a tick's fart when compared to the question on the table. You know the question on the table? Guilty? Not guilty? Did the defendant commit the crime. That is the only question that matters and a trained professional with a lie detector can usually determine if somebody is lying.

A suspected criminal should have council, but the council should not be allowed to instruct the defendant about what questions should or shouldn't be answered. Allow the cops to interrogate the suspect to the best of their ability, using all the wiles and trickery in their arsenal, without alerting the suspect to the fact that this is what's going on. Let the cops do their job! The purpose of the legal council is simply to keep police from physically abusing the suspect. To ensure that the suspect is allowed restroom breaks, nourishment, and adequate time for sleep. Other than that, nothing!

As to the jury, that's the biggest injustice of all in our so-called justice system. This is just so simple and so obvious that I'm frankly amazed that we don't do it. Is this a murder case? We need experienced medical pathologists—who've actually done autopsies—on the jury. Is the defendant accused of embezzling? We need some accountants on the jury. Accused of abusing his dog? Hello ... veterinarian. Instead of some asinine random sampling of "peers," we need a carefully selected group of professionals who can not only look at the evidence, but understand the evidence exactly in the way it's meant to be understood.

  • A judge should be a referee, not a tyrant. It's not his courtroom it's the people's He decides only the punishment, not the guilt.
  • Each side should be free to present their entire case, free from harassment from any other interested party including judge, jury, prosecution, and defense.
  • Allow the police to question the defendant and the witnesses without any hindrance. Why on Earth don't we polygraph every defendant as a policy, and then allow that evidence to be presented in the trial? This is science; it's not bullshit.
  • We need trained professionals on the jury not "peers."

No comments:

Post a Comment