harbison215 t1_j9to0xn wrote
Reply to comment by espressocycle in Family of elderly man beaten to death with traffic cone blindsided by teen suspect posting bail: 'I lost it' by JBizznass
The same constitution you mention about a speedy trial also gives defendants a right to build a case, even if there is video evidence. I don’t think you’re 100% wrong, but a system that judges it’s evidence and then determines what kind of trial to have based on that evidence would not be a good system overall.
espressocycle t1_j9ybql9 wrote
I'm not a lawyer but it's not as if the defense can drag things out indefinitely so at some point there's a judge forcing a case to trial, right? So it's really a matter of degree. Under our laws the defense in this case has every right to mount a case that considers things like intent, premeditation, whether a murder was the product of another crime, etc. I simply don't think that's how it should be.
There shouldn't be degrees of murder. If a person is dead because of your intentional actions that could reasonably be expected to cause death, it's murder, period, not manslaughter, second degree murder, etc. Now I admit that would strike many people as unfair and my own instinct is to agree. "But he didn't mean to kill him, just rough him up. Who knew he had a heart condition?" However, it's much closer to how non-western societies view things and I've come to believe that's a better view.
harbison215 t1_j9ycnw6 wrote
The problem arises when you we start to get into who should be the arbiter of this decision. Again, you’re saying some people should be able to make a defense, and some shouldn’t. Although watching obviously guilty people form a defense can be repugnant, it would be more repugnant to see innocent people rail roaded by an unequal justice system.
We already have a justice system that can do exactly what you’re saying subliminally based on things like race, due to inherent biases. If you think adding more possible manipulation into the system would be a better thing, that’s where I strongly disagree.
espressocycle t1_j9ttu5o wrote
That's only if you think it's appropriate to build a defense case on mitigating factors and all that other stuff common in western legal and moral arguments. Personally, I think that's irrelevant. Either you committed the crime or you didn't. It doesn't even matter if it was premeditated, a crime of passion or an unintentional yet inevitable outcome of reckless behavior. That's why I also think the punishment for attempted murder and murder should be the same. Why should you get a lower sentence for shooting someone just because you missed a major artery? Why should a drunk driver who hits a telephone pole get a lighter sentence than one who hits a person?
harbison215 t1_j9tue52 wrote
You’re saying we should determine who is worthy of even getting to build a defense and who isn’t. Therein lies the problem.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments