Death Penalty?

[evan]

Again, I'm new to this board, and I don't really like just entering in and spouting off, but if someone would like to justify the death penalty from a philosophical stand point, I would love to hear it. This is no huge challenge or anything.. just an opportunity for discussion.

[sonrisa]

:D oh slay-ah.......

[sahyo]

hehehe :D

[evan]

:) no taka's slayas? :)

~~that's a shame of a game~~

aye~

poor moor~

where the shore's door
is open at last, yet empty: alas.

so he floats by his lonesome,
in a shipwreck; on flotsam.

waiting for tidings
of somebody's writings,

but stomach is churning,
and the ship is still burning,

ship is on fire!
bird? on a wire?

i have tried.. in my way:
to be free.

e

[vicente]

Personally, I couldn't imagine even a single arguement to justify the death penalty. Killing what we don't like will not stop unsocial behavior,...only love will do that. Therefore, instead of pawning off our perceived garbage to prisons, deviant behavior should be relegated to 'love camps'. Of course, before that occurs, the majority of society must first understand what love is,...which will never happen as long as the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judeaism and Islam) exist.

:)

[evan]

i beg to differ..

so i'll hold out my sniffer:

for here is a man:
who grew up in a pan
bubbled over so that it really was hot,
filled up with old Abe.. that silly old sot,

and still to this day, finds comfort in he..
that we of the pot,
call jeesy creezzie..

and also just know
(like wisconsin and snow)
that were he alive he -
WOULD BE FROM HAWAII!!

and preech like their shamen,
(and possibly their gay men..)
that life is just love
made solid and whole,
and if you love your friends,
then you might have a soul..

and so we all might just cook
(us people of the book)
in big frying pan,
child, man, or wo-man,
where the sauce is just love
and the noodles a dove
till we can say "jeese,
the world is at peace."

[vicente]

Martin Luther King, Jr once said:
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that".

With the above in mind, why do we, as a society, choose to punish those who we feel brake our rules, with long terms of incarceration or physical death. Does this imposition of removing the reflection of our own darkness do anything to heal ourselves, those we feel hurt us, or the rules of our society? Is further disempowering those in anguish with hefty prison sentences and death the correct response to the crime,...to those who, through whatever circumstances, forgot the presence of love?

Would not a truely loving society, instead of building more and more prisons, send the infractors of the rules to 'love camps', where people of Full Spectrum Consciousness could show them how to re-member themselves and release the negative beliefs which precipitated the non-loving infractions? Or are we, as a society, so permanently entangled in our attitudes of intolerance, self-righteousness, beliefs, unforgivingness, etc., that we, as a whole, are unable to even consider the interconnectedness with all we perceive.

Yes, I am wishful for loving solution. However, before a new view of crime can be seen, society as a whole needs to shift towards uncovering more of the love that they are, so that the outer reflection of the Collective's inner would no longer see incarceration and death as viable remedies.

In other words, we look at the Criminal Justice System soley through the perception of crime and criminals being outside of us, that is, as entities separate from society, something we can hide away and pretend isn't there, instead of as part of an interconnected dynamic that it is.

To me, it is apparent that all of our activity, when seen as a whole, is guided by Spirit. However, I also see Spirit as unconditional; that is, Spirit unconditionally responds to what we're fascinated with. If we're fascinated with what we think we do not have, then Spirit will bring more experiences of lack. If we're fascinated with what we do have, then Spirit will bring more experiences of abundant fulfillment. Likewise, if one thinks that those who infract our rules should be imprisioned and hidden from our sight, then Spirit will animate those experiences, which will advance the building of more repository's for throwing people away,...that is, until we see what needs to be loved and healed.

The vibration of Spirit brings us healing, by reflecting to us what there is to be healed. To me, prisons are simply a symptom of a sick society.

Vicente
:)

[sonrisa]

luv your rappin Evan
puts me in heaven
:D

unfortunately I can't oblige you re: your request since I think the death penalty is morally repugnant. And besides, it makess society no better than the convicted murderer, since that's the only time the dp is used anymore.

[todd]

We all know there is no such thing as absolute justice....the judges are only regular humans gifted with more or less intelligence and honesty, but I do not want to talk about this or about the measure’s irrevocability but about the penalty itself.

There are several points of view that are being considered in all this issue, and the one that tends to prevail is the sociological one.
It is not about good or right, about life or death, but about the general effect of the penal punishment.
In the latest theories that are almost worldwide accepted, (with some exceptions including US) there are efforts being made to transform the punishment in an equilibrium between the general society interest and the individual interest.
Lately, there is a large opinion building up in the juridical world that the punishment should be much better individualized and it's final scope to be the criminal education and his reintegration in society.

Therefore, the death penalty is only an instrument to maximize the oppression hidden behind the society's will.
In the juridical systems where a court with jury is being used, things are even worse. The main decision is taken by a bunch of people selected using arguable objectivity, that have no clue about what justice mean, that have no clue about what guilt is. This kind of trial is nothing but a play, were all that count is the lawyer’s persuasion.

Most people do not understand that justice is not democracy, and the opinion of the many will not make a criminal more or less guilty of his facts. The guilt, in it's criminal law meaning is a complicate and sensitive concept.
It is the psychical attitude of the author at the moment of the crime, regarding his act and its repercussions - animus nocendi, mens rea, actus rea and the causality relation.

The penalty actually is not meant to have its main impact on the criminal, but on the society, to satisfaction and to prevent further repetitions of the antisocial act…the use of the power of fear.

Who are we to measure the value of one life or another?
We are far too uncivilized and savage, but we like to think we can make justice!

In our history we first had the law of strongest and the law of an eye for an eye.
We are still there..

[sonrisa]

Originally posted by todd@Sep 23 2004, 05:17 AM
In the juridical systems where a court with jury is being used, things are even worse. The main decision is taken by a bunch of people selected using arguable objectivity, that have no clue about what justice mean, that have no clue about what guilt is. This kind of trial is nothing but a play, were all that count is the lawyer’s persuasion.

Todd you have just trashed a fundamental tenet of the Constitution- that the accused be tried by a jury of one's peers.

What do you propose instead, that the accused be tried by one person, ie, the judge? A judge may be knowledgeable re: the law, but can still (if only unconsciously) bring his or her own biases & opinions into the trial. At least with a jury you have 12 individuals with 12 pov's that have to deliberate the case & come back with one ironed out unamimous verdict. The flaws, imo, lie not so much with jury trial, but with jury selection- do you know that a guaranteed way to get out of jury duty is to say that you are against the death penalty? Prosecutors can use something called premptory challenge to remove a potential juror from a jury without just cause. Just cause being the display of a bias, something that would not render that juror impartial going into the trail. Here's a factoid from the Death Penalty Information Center (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org): more than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all white juries. This is a jury of a black person's peers?!?
Then there is the matter of the prosecution supressing evidence that would cause a jury to render a not guilty verdict.

There's nothing wrong with idea of a trial by a jury of one's peers per sé, it is the stacking & manipulation of the jury in favor of the prosecution that is the problem. The accused should get an honest to god fair trial where the prosecution has to actually prove it's case.

[todd]

In the juridical systems where a court with jury is being used, things are even worse. The main decision is taken by a bunch of people selected using arguable objectivity, that have no clue about what justice mean, that have no clue about what guilt is. This kind of trial is nothing but a play, were all that count is the lawyer’s persuasion.


Todd you have just trashed a fundamental tenet of the Constitution- that the accused be tried by a jury of one's peers.

Yes, I did and I mean it.

Justice is a complex concept with many meanings, justice for one doesn't mean justice for all, and the official 'justice' it something else too.

A crime exists as long there is an official law that forbids a certain act.
The knowledge of law allows you to understand the law, to understand the description of the act considered crime, in all it's aspects.

The necessity to inhibit such act, to forbid it by law is not law, it is politics, and law is not and will never be perfect because even if it answers to the general society's need the day it was written, it will not have the same value 5 years later.
A person may be convicted for a crime today and executed but after 10 years maybe his crime will mean only maximum 10 years imprisonment or will not even be considered a crime anymore. The administrative delays in the execution act is not law, but maybe pity or fear of being wrong.

Law itself is usually cryptic, there are millions of pages written behind it, the lawyers have many different views of the same law, there is even a discipline called 'law interpretation'.
I do not think that someone without any juridical education should be allowed to decide another person's faith.

If the accused has a bad lawyer, doesn't want one, or simply indirectly admits to be author of the crime, he will be convicted. There is only prosecutor, jury, and judge. The prosecutor target is to get the conviction, the defender doesn't care, the jury doesn't know and the judge can't do anything about it.. Nice juridical system... I love it.

The same defendant may be convicted by a jury or freed by another. I accept, errare humanum est, but there is nothing to appreciate in the jury’s decision. It is a simple, personal option, I think this guy is guilty or I don’t.
A good juridical system is the one where you have a good (clear) written law, and the judge is the one that applies the law. Where the decision is made by good knowledgeable judges, where the judges have an active role in the trial, and where the access to appeal on multiple levels is granted by law with simple and fast procedures.

AND FREE. The law is the society protection system against individuals, then why should an outcast pay for his missed integration, why should he pay to defend himself against the society’s accusations

As I previously said, there is no perfect juridical system, but this is one of the worst.

[sonrisa]

so you would prefer that the fate of the accused rest in the hands of a judge? Are you aware that judges are political appointees?

the Constitution does state that the accused have access to free legal representation. They are called public defenders. Some are bad. But others are not. Most are overworked.

I agree that society's need for a law can change over the years. Some outdated laws, such as not playing dominos on Sundays (yeah it's a law click here (http://www.kids-teens.org/dumb_laws.htm)) are merely unenforced. Others are revised or discarded. And if they are revised, or a penalty for violating a law is changed, the sentences for offenders serving time for violating those laws is changed to conform to the new statute &/or penalty. In other words, if the death penalty were to be abolished tomorrow, all those on death row would probably get some sort of life sentence. Course that won't help those who have been executed, but, as you point out nothing's perfect.

this link explains trial by jury- & how it's abused- fairly well (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1295a.asp) It seems to me that such abuses would be even worse in the hands of just one person (ie the judge)

You state that even if a law answers to the general society's need the day it was written, it will not have the same value 5 years later. The Constitution is over 200 years old. Is that a tad outdated for your tastes? What do you suggest we replace it with?

[todd]

1. I said judges and not one judge, hierarchical organisation and ease of appeal. The main point of this is to avoid mistakes, to provide always a way of repairing a mistake. I forgot to mention that the decision of the judges is argumented and it is subject of analyse and eventualy for a future appeal. The appeal should be formulated by anyone interested, even the state, not only by the defendant.
2. Crimminal law is not Constitution.
3. In most countries judges are not allowed to do politics. They have a special social statute, immunity, inamovability, etc.
4. If the society spends a lot of money accusing you, it should spend the same amount in your defense.

[sonrisa]

todd--1. I said judges and not one judge, hierarchical organisation and ease of appeal. The main point of this is to avoid mistakes, to provide always a way of repairing a mistake. I forgot to mention that the decision of the judges is argumented and it is subject of analyse and eventualy for a future appeal. The appeal should be formulated by anyone interested, even the state, not only by the defendant.

-- there's an appeals process in place & the decisions are made solely by judges. In other words you want to skip the initial trial & start at the appeal stage. The idea that the state could formulate the appeal is an interesting one, but why would they bother when they've already proven their case?


todd--2. Crimminal law is not Constitution.

--no but the Constitution is the law of the land & defines how criminal law should be applied, or if it should be applied at all (if a law is constitutional or unconsitutional)



todd--3. In most countries judges are not allowed to do politics. They have a special social statute, immunity, inamovability, etc.

--in most countries there is no death penalty. Your suggestion that judges not do politics has merit tho



todd--4. If the society spends a lot of money accusing you, it should spend the same amount in your defense.

--another good suggestion. No argument here.

:)

[todd]

-- there's an appeals process in place & the decisions are made solely by judges. In other words you want to skip the initial trial & start at the appeal stage. The idea that the state could formulate the appeal is an interesting one, but why would they bother when they've already proven their case?

In the American system the state, representing society general interest , is only preoccupied in accusing and proving the guilt, sort of inquisition.
In other systems, the state has the duty of proving the guilt, but also to follow the legality of the criminal trial, and to administer the proofs required by the defendant or judges. The decision of the jury is not an act of legality or justice, but a simple manifestation of will.
In other systems the decision of the judges is public, written and argumented, and everyone can see if the spirit of the law has been followed or not.
The judges should not be allowed to make law, but to follow and apply it.

[sonrisa]

Todd--In other systems, the state has the duty of proving the guilt, but also to follow the legality of the criminal trial, and to administer the proofs required by the defendant or judges.

-- by proofs do you mean evidence? Look, even if you want the judge to sift thru the evidence & testimony, s/he can only consider what's been admitted into court, & if the prosecution is bribing jailhouse snitches &/or surpressing evidence that would exonerate the defendant, what verdict do you think those judges would reach? The problem is not jury trails, it's the prosecution manipulating those trials to its benefit. Here's something else to consider- do you know that alot of judges are former DA's & prosecutors? And so they tend to favor the prosecution during a trial? This is what I mean by an unconscious bias.
A panel of 12 individuals (except on those uncommon occasions when the prosecution has succeeded in really stacking the jury) would be more impartial- infact the jury is supposed to be impartial.
Here is an example of a conscious bias, & one that happens to apply to this topic: what if a judge has a death wish, a hanging judge, so to speak? Wouldn't it pretty much be a foregone conclusion if this judge reaches a guilty verdict, the accused would most likely get the death penalty? OTOH, a jury, thru its deliberation to reach a consensus, may return a guilty verdict, but decide on a sentence other than the death penalty.


Todd-- The decision of the jury is not an act of legality or justice, but a simple manifestation of will.

-- I can't comment on these other systems, whatever they may be, but Article 3, Section 2, paragraph 3 of the Constitution states:"the Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury."
That's pretty succinct, one exception. Given that the Constitution is the Law of the Land, I'm guessing that whatever verdict the jury reaches (until & if it's overturned on appeal) is legal in that it was done in accordance with the Law of the Land



Todd--In other systems the decision of the judges is public, written and argumented, and everyone can see if the spirit of the law has been followed or not.

--in the current system, the judges' decisions are public, written, & argumented (dissenting opinion) for everybody to see. Jury verdicts are also written & made public. Lawyers call these "precedents"



Todd--The judges should not be allowed to make law, but to follow and apply it

--they don't make the law, Congress & other legislatures do. Judges (& juries for that matter) can (& should) declare if a law is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying that our courts system is perfect, there is most definitely room for reform, but your solution has real potential to turn out some mighty fine kangaroo courts. Somebody once said that democracy is a rotten form of government, but all the other forms are worse. Perhaps jury trails are a rotten way to seek justice (or not) but there are other methods that are worse.

[todd]

Why aren't the European countries using this system? Lack of civilisation? I doubt..

[sonrisa]

dunno, y not? maybe becuz they have their own ways? Tho I hope those ways don't include supressing evidence & trial manipulation. That needs to be cleaned up.

different histories, different cultures? (shrug) different strokes for different folx. :)

[todd]

Honesty is not an American property. Regretfully, not very popular either
I see the trial with jury as a proper method for the incipient American democracy which struggled with the lack of authority and institutions.

“they don't make the law, Congress & other legislatures do. Judges (& juries for that matter) can (& should) declare if a law is unconstitutional”

The precedent has power of law (relatively), so judges are making law here.

“whatever verdict the jury reaches (until & if it's overturned on appeal) is legal in that it was done in accordance with the Law of the Land"

The verdict is legal as quantity. This doesn’t question the quality of the verdict (as you said – whatever…)

I do not agree that random people without law education (or any) should decide another people’s faith. Usually, being a member of a jury is an unique experience for everyone of them, they feel powerful, a power they never experienced before, they are the gods deciding another people’s faith and their decision will be mostly based on empathy. And who do you think it’s easier to corrupt? A member of the jury or a judge?


How is it possible to judge an 11 years old as an adult when you do not allow him to buy alcohol until 21? Why are these discriminations permitted when considering minors discernment.
Why is the Police allowed to use disproportionate force? Why are they allowed to shoot people from behind, for the simple fact the suspects are running away?
The answer is only one:
The laws are wrong and they need to be changed, but it is difficult to realize this from inside.

[sonrisa]

Todd--Honesty is not an American property. Regretfully, not very popular either

--no, not recently, unfortunately. It wasn't always like this. But I believe it explains why you & I are coming at this from different angles. You state how you think the courts system should be like everybody's gonna follow it to the letter. I read your proposals & think, now how can this be corrupted? It's not all that hard to do, becuz, with a couple exceptions, most of what you have suggested is already part of the legal process, & end runs have been done around just about all of them. None of these problems can be rectified by eliminating the jury becuz the problems lie in other areas of the system, infact in most cases the jury is actually the failsafe. Eliminate the jury & these problems would become more common becuz you wouldn't have those pesky jurors standing in the way


Todd--I see the trial with jury as a proper method for the incipient American democracy which struggled with the lack of authority and institutions.

--yeah, it's pretty obvious from these posts of yours that your understanding of how our courts system is sposed to work is, well, less than perfect, to be nice about it


me, previously--“they don't make the
law, Congress & other legislatures do. Judges (& juries for that matter) can (& should) declare if a law is unconstitutional”

Todd--The precedent has power of law (relatively), so judges are making law here.

--there's a difference between actually making the law & interpreting it against the framework of the Constitution. And judges should do this. Consider the un-PATRIOT Act which runs counter to large portions of the Constitution. Infact, I would go so far to say it pretty much trashes the Constitution. There have been some attempts in Congress to retract this abomination, but so far, all have failed (tho the last time it was a dead heat, so we may get the suckah repealed yet!) However, as cases involving the un-PATRIOT Act have come to trial, judges have been striking portions of it down, as unconstitutional. It's slow, piecemeal work, since the judges can only do it when it's involved in a trial, & then only the parts of it that are involved. But until Congress is able to pass repealing legislation, the judges are the only means we have to get rid of that thing.


Todd--The verdict is legal as quantity. This doesn’t question the quality of the verdict (as you said – whatever…)

--& bad verdicts can be overturned in the appeals process



Todd--I do not agree that random people without law education (or any) should decide another people’s faith.

--as far as I know juries aren't supposed to be deciding another person's faith. Seems to me there would be 1st Amendment issues. The jury's job is to sift thru the evidence & testimony presented at the trail & come to a consensus (verdict) based on what they know (the evidence & testimony) You don't need a law degree to do that. Infact we all do it everyday- make decisions based on what we know about a given matter.
Also, you aren't crediting a person's ability to learn. My Gramma used to sit on juries (she was old & retired & her days were free) she found the experiences to be most instructive. I myself belong to the local death penalty group & have learned a good deal about trial & appellate procedures since joining the the group. The majority of what I have posted here is based on what I learned from this group. And yes, there are lawyers in the group to explain any legalize in English.
Which brings me to my 3rd point- lawyers & judges can get so bound up in the intricacies of the law that they don't see the forest for all the trees. We had an actual case come to our attention, where the prosecution had successfully tried an innocent person of murder & got a death penalty conviction. This was a rare case in which the prosecution, upon realizing they tried the wrong guy, went to a judge, admitted their mistake, & attempted to get the verdict overturned. The judge's response was that innocence is no reason to stop an execution (that is the gist of it, I forget the exact words) huh? The judge, deep in the heart of Law Forest, was referring to the prosecution's having done it's job of proving that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevermind that the accused was actually innocent of said crime. A jury, unencumbered by the finer points of law, would of cut thru that bogus legalize & said the dude's innocent, let him go. But since this was in the appellate process, no jury was involved. Perhaps there should be juries in the appellate process.



Todd--Usually, being a member of a jury is an unique experience for everyone of them, they feel powerful, a power they never experienced before, they are the gods deciding another people’s faith and their decision will be mostly based on empathy.

--oh really? I don't recall Granny ever feeling that way. What are you basing that statement on?



Todd--who do you think it’s easier to corrupt? A member of the jury or a judge?

--well du-uh... the judge of course




Todd-- How is it possible to judge an 11 years old as an adult when you do not allow him to buy alcohol until 21? Why are these discriminations permitted when considering minors
discernment.

-- trying minors as adults & incarcerating them with adult inmates is wrong, no argument here. The practice needs to be abolished. But may I point out that it is the judge who decides if a minor is to be tried as an adult, not a jury?



Todd--Why is the Police allowed to use disproportionate force? Why are they allowed to shoot people from behind, for the simple fact the suspects are running away?
The answer is only one:
The laws are wrong and they need to be changed, but it is difficult to realize this from inside.

--I totally agree. I live in a city that had riots for the better part of a week (& was locked down the rest of the week) over police brutality a few years back. Ever since things calmed down local citizens groups have been calling- in a non-violent manner- for police reform, the Justice Dept has mandated certain reforms, but so far, nothing has changed. This town is another riot waiting to happen. But again, this has nothing to do with jury trials, again the problem lies elsewhere, in this case with the police & uninterested city officials.

[evan]

hey guys.. i hope you don't mind if i re-join this conversation for a bit.

first off, not to be picky, but could we use the word judicial, instead of juridical? both are words, but juridical is irksomely archaic. :)


Todd--The precedent has power of law (relatively), so judges are making law here.

--there's a difference between actually making the law & interpreting it against the framework of the Constitution. And judges should do this. Consider the un-PATRIOT Act which runs counter to large portions of the Constitution. Infact, I would go so far to say it pretty much trashes the Constitution. There have been some attempts in Congress to retract this abomination, but so far, all have failed (tho the last time it was a dead heat, so we may get the suckah repealed yet!) However, as cases involving the un-PATRIOT Act have come to trial, judges have been striking portions of it down, as unconstitutional. It's slow, piecemeal work, since the judges can only do it when it's involved in a trial, & then only the parts of it that are involved. But until Congress is able to pass repealing legislation, the judges are the only means we have to get rid of that thing.

On that note.. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ghts_patriot_dc (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040929/ts_nm/rights_patriot_dc) ..in case your day needed a little cheering up. :)

todd, precedent setting by judges is one of the fundementals of our judicial system. On a grand scale, it represents one of the key checks and ballances of our governmental structure. the Legislative (congress) branch makes law, the Exec branch (president) enoforces law, and today, the Judicial branch reviews those laws. that's how it works to keep any one group from getting to much power. the notion precedent enters into the equation thus: the constitution is very vague on the powers of the legislative branch when it comes to the revision of laws. thus at first the Judicial branch was lacking in power compared to the other two branches of the gov. However, in the famous case of Madbury vs. Madison, John Marshall first declared a law to be unconstitutional. He continued to do so, and by the time the Leg. branch questioned it, the precedent had already been set. Today, as witnessed in one example above (among hundreds of others), is one of the most valued systems in the American goverment. remember the civil rights movement? remember segregation? remember Brown vs. the Board of Education?

judges certainly are, as you say, NOT "random people without law education", and thus do indeed make good decision-makers. Many judges are in fact very good people, and we as a populous therefore sanction these judges to quote "review" the law, as they do. But they are not perfect. On the question of who is easier to corrupt, the answer is most certainly the judge. the judge sits in a permanent position, where the D.A. (district attorney) has the ability to form long term (corrupt) relationships with said judges.

Also the jury system is not this great evil that you clearly view it as. I think you are missing one of the key roles of the jury system, which beautiful sunrisa aluded to earlier..

regardless of faults (uneducated, power-hungry, apathetic, too empathetic, etc.) that some jury people exibit, they still serve an essential function. a function which ties back to fundemental american governental philosophy: checks and ballances. as sonrisa said, the jury is the failsafe. in other words, they act to ballance the power of the judge, just as the judge acts to ballance the power of the jury.

this ballance of power (among w/ other reasons which you might more easily argue against) is one of the main reasons we value the jury system. our system is certainly not even close to perfect, but as sonrisa said, the problem is not with the jury system.

:unsure: e :think:

[todd]

"first off, not to be picky, but could we use the word judicial, instead of juridical? both are words, but juridical is irksomely archaic"

In my understanding, I see a distinction between them, for me juridical refers to the science, the study of law and judicial to the procedure, the practical side.

If you think that law is something that everybody can handle, let's try this short example:

A blind man is crossing the street on the red light. He doesn't have a very good hearing so he misinterpreted the beeping. He was using his white stick though.
He was heading to the hospital where he was supposed to get his dialyze done and he had no other option. The ambulance couldn't transport him that day because of an ad-hoc drivers strike that paralyzed the whole ambulance system that day. He called 911 but the operator told him they cannot help him.
A car hits the man and kills him instantly. The driver had no way to see the man in a reasonable time to react, his vision being obstructed by a speeding Walmart truck driving in the same direction on his right side that avoided the accident in the last moment.
The blind man is a famous writer that makes $1 mil/year, he has a non-working wife and 5 minor kids.

Now I see some questions here:
1. Was it any crime committed? If yes, by whom?
2. Is there a guilt involved here? If yes, how is the guilt divided, and who should carry the burden of paying for his family?
3. Would the fact that the victim had 300ml of whisky 30 min before make any difference? What if the driver had his licence suspended for DUI at that time?


" this ballance of power (among w/ other reasons which you might more easily argue against) is one of the main reasons we value the jury system. our system is certainly not even close to perfect, but as sonrisa said, the problem is not with the jury system"

I see the efficiency of the judicial system as one of the main attributes of civilization.

[sonrisa]

I see some questions up there too:
If the guy's a millionaire then how come his chauffer isn't taking him to dialysis?
At the very least his old lady could give him a lift, unless she's blind too.
If he's a millionaire, why is he even going to the clinic in the first place? How come he doesn't have one of those portable dialysis machines so he can do it at home?

but enough of that.

thanx for the yahoo link Evan. Bit by bit, part by part, that suckah is going into the dumpster :D

Your explanation of the judicial system is great, are you a lawyer/law student? And a history lesson to boot! Law professor? :) I prefer to explain things by using examples, & as a note to all who are following this discussion, I want to point out the examples I have been using are exceptions, rather than the rule. If I thought for one minute that the courts system was truly corrupt, I wouldn't be wasting my time defending it. My point is, that if breaches in the system & miscarriages of justice can occur in a legal sustem that utilizes jury trials, imagine how much more commonplace such breaches & miscarriages would be if there was no jury to discourage them. As I suggested previously, the system could easily deteriorate into one of paid-for lawyers & judges operating kangaroo courts.

[todd]

Sonrisa, you are right, but I'm afraid it's easier to fight against corruption than against ignorance and stupidity.

[sonrisa]

thanx Todd :)

[evan]

on the given senario:

the driver of the car that hit him would get charged with vehicular manslaughter, if anything. If he had a DUI, it make make a difference as to whether or not he was charged. the issue of the oncoming wal-mart devil druck might determin a prosecuter's decision to charge him. if he was found guilty of manslaughter, then there is a very slight chance that his insurance company would have to pay damages, but most likely nobody would, unless, since he was a milionaire, he had good life-insurance. as far as i can tell, nothing else in the story makes any difference with regard to law. yes, that's simply my take on it.. but it would depend a lot on interpretation, and more details, of course, which is perhaps the point that you're trying to make, in which case: i agree. much of the law involves interpretation.
____________

on questions 1 - 3:

i am going to assume that your point is that they are hard to answer questions, which normal folk might have a hard time answering, due to potential "ignorance and stupidity"

...i agree. thus it is the job of the lawyer, when entering a court, to assume that the jury knows nothing, and proceed to explain to them the facts. know clearly one runs into the issue of lawyers who do nothing but put on a song and dance for the jury, in an effort to beguile them.. but nontheless it is better than simply cutting a check to the judge, AND, judges too are beguilable by song and dance lawyers..
__________

between juridical and judicial, they technically mean the same thing.. but if one has a specific definition for you, then by all means use it. no sarcasm here, just saying "go for it".

in response to "I see the efficiency of the judicial system as one of the main attributes of civilization."

I cetainly don't disagree, but fail to see if this was in contention or response to the quote about power that preceeded it...
__________

todd i believe corruption, ignorance, and stupidity are indeed all very hard to fight against... but between a single judge, in a position of power (which "absolute, corrupts absolutely".. :)), in a permenent position... and a group of 12 citizens who need not be be educated.. i believe it may be worth the risk in order that those TWO imperfect systems serve to ballance each other out. similar to what sonrisa wrote, the jury helps to ballance the breaches and miscariages that would occur w/o it.. just helps stem the corruption of the jury..
___________

sonrisa - thank you much! i'm afraid i can't claim law student or lawyer.. i barely struggle to be well read. my mom went to law school while i was in middle school though, and i use to sit on her bed and read case law to her, so maybe it rubbed off a little either then, or since then. : ) I'm actually an international relations student, who wishes he had time to get a philosophy and/or world religions minor... and yourself? (and you, todd? i don't mean to leave you out!)

i actually like to use example too.. (i don't know if you could tell) :) example and analogies are just how i think.. they help me process information better.

[sonrisa]

Hey Evan! Sorry it's taken me so long to answer your question, but things have been hectic around here these past couple weeks. As I said before, a good deal of what I know about the law & court procedures comes from the local death penalty group I'm a part of. Speaking of which, there is, sadly, another case of an innocent man being put to death, this time in Tennessee, becuz innocence is no reason to stop an execution. He was convicted of raping & murdering this woman, & the DNA analysis showed that the husband probably did it, but that this guy definitely did not do it. But the 6th Circuit court ruled 8-7 that the execution should still go forward. Apparently, this dude has a better chance of getting off if some procedural error was discoverd in his original trial. I don't know how those judges can sleep at night, knowingly sending an innocent man to his death.

But to answer your q- I'm an assistant artist with the Art Academy (http://www.artacademy.edu). Unfortunately it's only part time, so in order to make ends meet, I work for the Govt. And yes slayer, I'm here to help you. :)