It would be called [XXX County] District Attorney's Office.
You're so naive. Please, please research what the criminal justice system actually works like. It's not like Law & Order!
Quote from: heartbreaker! on November 12, 2008, 04:58:17 PMYou're so naive. Please, please research what the criminal justice system actually works like. It's not like Law & Order!Are there any problems you have specifically with system? It puts away the parasitical threats to society, does it not? I will be the first to admit that there have obviously been a number of people who were in fact "innocent" according to later DNA testing, etc. Cases like these, however, are obvious minorities. Wouldn't you agree?
F*cking bi+ch drinks a 1 oz bottle of goose and thinks she's French
As are the magority of inmates in the US
No one's biting on the 3.9 in neuroscience?
Not sure why it's so obvious. Which is not to say I disagree.Even assuming, however that most of the people who are in prison are guilty of a crime, would it bother you at all if you knew that a defendant's chances of getting acquitted or getting a lenient sentence were directly proportional to the amount of money that defendant had available for legal services? Or would that not matter?Note that I posed the question as a hypothetical. I did not say that was the way it is.
Even though you're a flame, I'll bite. This is a topic I'm really passionate about and maybe someone out there might find the information useful.
My main problem with the criminal justice system is that its standards for success inherently doom it to fail at making any significant inroads at reducing crime or improving the standards of life in neighborhoods that are rotting from the inside because of crime. Take the drug trade for example. Both federal and state prosecutors throw around numbers of drugs seized or numbers of dealers arrested. That's all well and good, but the people up top, the ones running the drug rings, plan for this. Drug lords are smart, they are running a business and they can account for these costs. By continually going after Joe Schmo who sells coke on 168th Street and counting his conviction a success, prosecutors set themselves up for failure. After Joe is in jail, Jack will fill his spot right away. It's like Sysiphus' rock - you never make it anywhere. The methods of prosecution are self-defeating, and no one is willing to do anything about it.
Secondly, you say that wrongful convictions are a minority of cases. Let's say that's correct. In Actual Innocence, the author makes this analogy. Let's say that one out of every 100 or 200 cases results in a wrongful conviction. Let's say one out of every 1000 cases does. If I was a rep from Boeing and I was selling a plane to American Airlines and I told them that this plane would crash every 100, 200 or even 1000 times it flew, they'd look at me like I was insane. Even if it's a minority of cases, it is SHAMEFUL that this happens and even more shameful that people are willing to write this off as a consequence of the system.
Thirdly, minorities and poor people make up a disproportionate amount of prisoners. Fine, you'll say. It's because minorities and poor people commit the most crimes. Let's say that they do. Ever think about why? How does locking people up solve the problems that create this situation in the first place? It doesn't. If as a society we say that the best way we can serve people's interests is by putting them in jail, rather than ensuring that people have equal opportunity to go to school, live in a peaceful environment, etc., then we are doing a bad job as a society. *gets off the high horse*