If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Then why is our court system set up to the point where it is often more expensive to fight for your innocence, then it is to in many cases to take the false charge and move on?
To me that's like a business that supposed to be doing X, is setup and runs to do Y, while advertising X.
Again I;m an extremist when it comes to right and wrong, if I'm not wrong I'll go down financially fighting to prove it, but most people don't have the faith and courage it takes to risk what little they have to be like that. Although they should, we only have about 50 good years here, why willingly waste life shackled by false charges.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
You are innocent until proven guilty. The trial is the state trying to prove your guilt.
Your analogy is incorrect. The system is working the way it is supposed to.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
You are innocent until proven guilty. The trial is the state trying to prove your guilt.
Your analogy is incorrect. The system is working the way it is supposed to.
I disagree. I know how the system is supposed to work, but its honestly not working that way. Innocent people plead guilty all the time because they are terrified of worse things happening and/or because they cannot afford to fight for their innocence. Its just become too expensive. Lots of people blame the lawyers for that, but realistically its not their fault.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
llworking
I disagree. I know how the system is supposed to work, but its honestly not working that way. Innocent people plead guilty all the time because they are terrified of worse things happening and/or because they cannot afford to fight for their innocence. Its just become too expensive. Lots of people blame the lawyers for that, but realistically its not their fault.
Exactly, the system works on paper, but practically it does not. Our system, as is, in a non capitalistic economy would be a lot closer to where it needs to be.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
You won't find that phrase or principal spelled out in the Constitution. There are some things that lean that way in the fifth and sixth amendment. By the way, the better term is you are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. There's no constitutional principle that clearing your name be EASY, just requirements for due process, guards against self-incrimination, jury trial, grand juries, speedy trial,etc...
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
llworking
\Its just become too expensive. Lots of people blame the lawyers for that, but realistically its not their fault.
It is at least partially the lawyers' fault for charging exorbitant fees and not properly managing cases such that things drag on and on.
The system is working as it is intended but like all systems has issues. The state has to prove you are legally guilty, until then you are legally innocent. That is 100% correct. That innocent people choose to plead guilty rather than fight is on them, not really the system. They are choosing to say, "The state is right, I am guilty." The only time I would say it's the systems fault is if you have an overzealous prosecutor either throwing the kitchen sink at someone to get a plea (only if the person is actually innocent) or continues pushing a case that is either tenuous at best or outright false.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
They are choosing to say, "The state is right, I am guilty." The only time I would say it's the systems fault is if you have an overzealous prosecutor either throwing the kitchen sink at someone to get a plea (only if the person is actually innocent) or continues pushing a case that is either tenuous at best or outright false.
I hate to use the same horse and over but I kinda have to.
Does only having ONE processing facility for HWP drug tests, forcing prosecutors to charge cases with a 0.000 BAC for said test,and hold them for several months till those results come back clean, and allowing extension after extension for said tests(requiring a visit to court weekly incsome cases), then after they come back negative dropping the case because the entire ordeal was keystoned on a piece of evidence that is at best questionable even if comes back favorable to the prosecution. ( A positive urine test would not prove you were intoxicated AT THE TIME, only that you have taken any drug in the last 24 hours to One MONTH that set off detection for a controlled substance.) And the entire time this is going on, threatening jail time and what not, sound like the system that is designed to be impartial and assume innocence? That so clearly favors the Prosecution economically to the point that it IS the deciding factor for a LOT of people.
And quite honestly, it makes SOME sense to do that to people that are younger and have less employment history, and recent school records that indicate an issue with drugs or absences. Doing that to people that are professionals,have a job(that you now lost them), have been driving for decades, and never had a drug related offense, with no obvious evidence (such as paraphernalia) to me is Definitely a SYSTEMATIC intimidation tactic(and a waste of tax payer money to boot I might add), and one I did NOT appreciate and do want to end, NOW.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
Zeo
I hate to use the same horse and over but I kinda have to.
Does only having ONE processing facility for HWP drug tests, forcing prosecutors to charge cases with a 0.000 BAC for said test,and hold them for several months till those results come back clean, and allowing extension after extension for said tests(requiring a visit to court weekly incsome cases), then after they come back negative dropping the case because the entire ordeal was keystoned on a piece of evidence that is at best questionable even if comes back favorable to the prosecution. ( A positive urine test would not prove you were intoxicated AT THE TIME, only that you have taken any drug in the last 24 hours to One MONTH that set off detection for a controlled substance.) And the entire time this is going on, threatening jail time and what not, sound like the system that is designed to be impartial and assume innocence? That so clearly favors the Prosecution economically to the point that it IS the deciding factor for a LOT of people.
The prosecution is neither impartial nor do they assume innocence. That's the defense's job. The prosecution's job is to prove the person is guilty with the evidence they have or obtain. Until you have an actual court date, that scenario shouldn't cost you a thing. You just don't talk to anyone until you have to, and then only with a lawyer.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
Zeo
Exactly, the system works on paper, but practically it does not. Our system, as is, in a non capitalistic economy would be a lot closer to where it needs to be.
What does THAT mean? In a "non-capitalistic economy"? Take a look at the authoritarian states and the Communist ones, and their so-called "justice" systems ... which system, would YOU rather have?
As an alternative, what might YOU suggest?
Quote:
Quoting
Zeo
I hate to use the same horse and over but I kinda have to.
Does only having ONE processing facility for HWP drug tests, forcing prosecutors to charge cases with a 0.000 BAC for said test,and hold them for several months till those results come back clean, and allowing extension after extension for said tests(requiring a visit to court weekly incsome cases), then after they come back negative dropping the case because the entire ordeal was keystoned on a piece of evidence that is at best questionable even if comes back favorable to the prosecution.
I do not know the process in your state, but, if I may state how it tends to go in mine.
A Blood test processed by DOJ with a .000 BAC on a DUI would automatically be forwarded to toxicology for drug analysis. If the drug test comes back clear, the DA can then ask that the test be conducted for additional substances beyond the standard panels. In all, the process beyond the BAC can take 3 to 9 months in many cases. In such a case, the charges would remain until such time as the test results came back and the prosecutor made a decision to continue on or to drop the matter.
Quote:
( A positive urine test would not prove you were intoxicated AT THE TIME, only that you have taken any drug in the last 24 hours to One MONTH that set off detection for a controlled substance.)
That depends on the substance. But, urine has fallen out of favor as an evidentiary test for a number of reasons. Probation and parole offices tend to use these because they are cheaper than blood and can provide a quick presumptive result which works for their purposes.
Quote:
And the entire time this is going on, threatening jail time and what not, sound like the system that is designed to be impartial and assume innocence? That so clearly favors the Prosecution economically to the point that it IS the deciding factor for a LOT of people.
The process is not and never has been quick. I can't tell you the number of cases I have to attend that are two or more years old, and not usually because the prosecution is causing the delays. In many cases, the defense draws the case out as part of its strategy.
Quote:
And quite honestly, it makes SOME sense to do that to people that are younger and have less employment history, and recent school records that indicate an issue with drugs or absences. Doing that to people that are professionals,have a job(that you now lost them), have been driving for decades, and never had a drug related offense, with no obvious evidence (such as paraphernalia) to me is Definitely a SYSTEMATIC intimidation tactic(and a waste of tax payer money to boot I might add), and one I did NOT appreciate and do want to end, NOW.
You will have to contact your state legislators.
Re: If You Are Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Quote:
Quoting
free9man
The prosecution is neither impartial nor do they assume innocence. That's the defense's job. The prosecution's job is to prove the person is guilty with the evidence they have or obtain. Until you have an actual court date, that scenario shouldn't cost you a thing. You just don't talk to anyone until you have to, and then only with a lawyer.
The cost is in going to court every week, in losing your job because of it, in being denied a new job because of it, and then judges let it go on systematically forever.
No the prosecutor is not responsible for maintaining impartiality or the presumption of innocence, but the court system, and the support systems are. the prosecutor however IS responsible for appropriately and cost effectively effectively deciding which cases are chargeable and should be pursued, and charging and pursuing ALL cases that are waiting on a single piece of evidence that all other evidence points to its not going to change the case significantly anyway, is defiantly a systematic tactic to try and get you to plead out for economic reasons. Only having ONE processing station for the entire state is Definitely ENCOURAGING that tactic, and judges putting up with it is encouraging it. I definitely see a slant in the system that should not be. This undermines the State's authority in general, poisons jurors for other cases against the State and so forth. I just cannot see a reason for it other then economic convenience of the state, which unduly impacts individuals lives.
As for alternative systems, I have several. I don't want to hear this is a legislative issue, because i already know that. I;m responding to the question," what would you do better."
1. Pay jurors minimum wage, so they actually don't actively want to not be there.
2. Have funds set aside for the express purpose of covering court expenses, Have those funds put in escrow for reimbursement against valid charges a defendant files, and release them upon a determination of dismissal for any reason that is the states fault, or a not guilty verdict. Upon a guilty verdict of the charge necessitating the expenses, the state reclaims the funds immediately, and charges their normal court costs. (Ie again finding someone guilty of a traffic violation, when they were charged with DUI, still means the state has to pay, because the traffic violation would not have necessitated the expenses incurred. the fine and costs for the trafffic ticket wold be deducted from the re-imbersment of the expenses, because the accused already paid for it.)
3. Eliminate public defenders. You hire a lawyer of your choice, the state again puts money in escrow toward their fees, if you win he gets payed out of that, if you lose, you already payed the lawyer the same rate the state would have. This way you are guaranteed to get your money back if you win. This would encourage people to fight bogus charges, and encourage cops not to go hunting for minor borderline issues that are just people trying to live.
4. Judges and cops get burnt out so easily, and often forget what its like to be on the other end of the bench. ANYONE with the authority to arrest or put another person in jail/ prison, should have to randomly be subject to an arrest, and have to at least once every 2 years, spend a couple days in jail or prison to remind them of what they are doing. I am a firm believer of "If you don't personally know what the consequences are for your actions, you have no business forcing your actions on another person." (on that note, I also feel jurors who have never been arrested are not qualified to be jurors for sentencing purposes, they have no concept of what has already occurred to a defendant, or the results of their actions.)
5. Either a charge is a minor charge or its not. A structure where minor charges can become major charges upon conviction is just plain stupid(specifically DUI, theft and electronic crimes.)
6. Eliminate any three strikes system. This is common sense. If a charge is severe enough that you should get a life sentence, you should not give it 2 more chances to happen again. Same token, if a charge is minor enough to warrant being a minor misdemeanor the first 2 times, why the hell is it suddenly important enough to be a Class 5 Felony the third time?
7. Uniform legal enforcement. this is huge, it should not be that one locality has an assininly severe punishment for something that is totally no big deal in shouting distance, in the same state.
These would goo a LOOOONg way toward making a system people trusted in. The ideal system you TRUST if you're guilty you will found such, and if you're not you won't be penalized for being innocent. Failing that, you trust that the punishment fits the crime if you have to serve it anyway. A lot of people forget that entering the Criminal justice system is the States Choice (usually via cop) and NOT yours when you are innocent. its not like you put the game cart int he Nintendo and then get mad when your character dies. Its I went outside to try and live my life, and I got yanked off the street and thrown into a slanted system that by appearances wants to keep me locked up.