NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 2925 guests online.
|
Add new commentIn the Pursuit of Justice, Do We Need Trials?Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Thu, 2008-03-27 02:52.
Joseph Potter at LewRockwell.com - the sad tale of the death of justice in America told to a class of eighth graders by two defense attorneys. 97% of the cases are settled by plea bargain, largely innocent people agreeing to plead guilty to avoid the risk of a jury finding them guilty of trumped-up charges. The only solution is to convince people to always demand a jury trial, but that is today a very dangerous thing to do. [lew] The answer has to do with the awesome power of the prosecutor's office and the idea of piling criminal counts on top of other criminal counts until any matter could net one untold years in jail. We were told by both attorneys that for centuries on end criminal charges were not arbitrary. We in America would charge a horse thief with theft, but not with conspiracy to steal horses, willful evasion of taxes on stolen horses, cruelty to animals and diminishing the civil rights of horse owners; but this is no longer true.
... We were told that it is a fiction that the government will not retaliate against you if you demand your constitutional right to a jury trial in a criminal case. That was the most shocking statement of the day to my young charges. The class and I were left with the distinct impression that the courts were rigged to fill jails and that justice was not on the agenda. When one of the children asked, "how is that fair?"; the answer was that the fair came to town in October and was at the fairgrounds on west Highway 50. This seems to be a well-known joke among lawyers, but it was a real comedown for the children and myself. ( categories: Politics )
Reply |
BlogrollFirearm NewsQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
1 day 49 min ago
4 days 21 hours ago
4 days 21 hours ago
6 days 9 hours ago
6 days 9 hours ago
2 weeks 3 hours ago
2 weeks 5 days ago
3 weeks 6 hours ago
3 weeks 3 days ago
3 weeks 4 days ago