Ernesto Miranda, 1963.
Posted on 03/15/2009 5:09:24 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
(Excerpt) Read more at populistamerica.com ...
The Sixth Amendment is familiar to many Americans as comprising a large part of Miranda, the advisory of rights to criminal suspects by arresting law enforcement officers. The amendment was crafted by the founders as insurance of sorts. They wished to provide that no one be punished for a crime without presentation of evidence sufficient to convince a group of unrelated people that he or she is, indeed, guilty. In this way, it was hoped that such motivators for accusation as jealously or revenge would be curbed. In large part, the founders were successful.
|
|
|||
Gods |
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
How’s the speedy part working these days?
not so good. I wish they also added some kind of limit on expenses burdened by the defendant.
I’ve been saying for a good 20 years that the incarceration rates are outa line. The trend has been to extend incarceration times while making the suffering of incarceration less. THat makes no sense.
Well, it makes perfect sense from the point of view of the penal system. The more customers they can maintain, the greater their job security and advancement opportunities.
My idea is to limit all prison sentences to 5 years or less. If you can’t rehabilitate a person in 5 years, kill them instead. Also, that 5 years should be excruciating. We can start by chopping all prison terms down to 10% of what they currently are. Then forcing them to earn their meals, rent, clothing, and toiletries. If they can’t earn enough while locked up, then they can pay off the bill after they are released. Solitary confinement only. No such thing as lunchrooms or yards, or excercise rooms.
You said — “My idea is to limit all prison sentences to 5 years or less. If you can’t rehabilitate a person in 5 years, kill them instead.”
Hoo-boy! That’s a bit radical.... LOL...
This is why a Fully Informed Jury is so essential to restrain a government that has exceeded its limits as well as to insure that the guilty are punished while the innocent go free.
Never had the pleasure. :’)
I don’t think so.
Think about it. What the heck is ten years incarceration going to accomplish that 5 years can’t?
Ernesto Miranda, 1963.
You said — “Think about it. What the heck is ten years incarceration going to accomplish that 5 years can’t?”
Well, I’m saying the following, under the assumption that the state does not take anyone’s life unless they have taken someone else’s life. That would be my first rule for that sort of thing.
And then, having said that — the *purpose* that would be served by 10 years, as compared to 5 years, is keeping someone “off the street” for that much longer, until they reach an age where they can’t do what they did before...
Age does that to people... LOL...
Fortunately, me either... :-)
The jury has the right and duty to judge both the fact and the law, no matter what the judge tells you.
The jury is the last line of defense against an unjust law.
Of course it has almost gotten to the point that the jury is as much a part of the government as the judge and prosecutor. In the last several juries I've served on, more than half of the jurors worked for government (federal, state, local). I keep seeing the same faces over and over again too. It's almost like we've become professional jurors.
So your view is that the purpose of incarceration is to take a person out of circulation??
My opinion is that’s kinda sick and demented. I say incarceration is a punishment to teach a person a lesson. The system is broken currently, obviously. The time incarcerated is way too pleasant. They don’t learn their lesson. Ideally, a person learns their lesson(tough love) and is released WITH NO FURTHER DEBT TO SOCIETY. All rights and privileges restored 100%. the faster they can start paying taxes and being productive, the better. And if they are paying taxes and working their butts off, then DON’T LIMIT THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES.
That is a little too much to hope for, I realize. But we can get somewhat close to that, I think.
So, if incarceration is a learning experience, not merely a way to get rid of people, then what the hell is a 10 year or a 20 year sentence supposed to accomplish that a 5 year sentence cannot? If you seriously think they need to be taken out of circulation, then it’s way more sensible to take them out permanently...ie death.
I’m serious here. No joking. Where is my logic failing?
What do you consider to be rehabilitated? There are too many people who are trampled by the justice system that never should be. And it gets worse all the time. Wouldn’t it have been better to have just killed this guy 4 years ago?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2206960/posts
And I will suggest to the family we meekly let them do the same to my nephew.
Sgt. Evan Vela
How do you rehabilitate people who did no wrong?
Your post makes no sense.
I clearly stated that we start by cutting all jail sentences to 10% of what they currently are. Then make them extremely unpleasant.
“bigheadfred” you said — “Wouldn’t it have been better to have just killed this guy 4 years ago?”
On this general idea — I say only “life for life” and that’s it. And then, it has to be proven to be so (that someone took a life). Otherwise, it’s prison time...
Really. What about torture and mutilation? If I cut your arms and legs off and put out your eyes and you live, I still deserve to live?
If I rape your daughter and then keep her a slave chained up in my basement for a few years and do all sorts of horrible things to her and then let her go and she lives, I still deserve to live?
Sorry, your litmus test sucks.
Well, that’s just the way I think about it. One can make it life in prison, too (no parole, I’m talking about).
And it doesn’t have to be country-club living either... They do have super-max prisons where a person is isolated for 23 hours of the day, one hour out, and they never come into contact with any other prisoner or see another prisoner — but only the guards.
My idea is to limit all prison sentences to 5 years or less. If you can’t rehabilitate a person in 5 years, kill them instead.
Life in prison without possibility of parole is exactly what I am 100% against. THere’s no reason to keep a person alive if they have no hope of ever being free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.