Comments on: A New Day In Criminal Court

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:49:00 +0000

http://seo.thetoolman.net

By: Ken Grandlund

Ken Grandlund — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:29:00 +0000

(response to Anonymous)

Thanks for taking the time to read the essay and making some points. I appreciate disparate opinions and will attempt to respons to your objections.

First, I make no contention that all individuals arrested are to be assumed guilty. Rather, if you've read the post previous to this one, you would see that essential reforms of the enforcement/investigative branches of our criminal system are required also in order to eliminate cases of wrongful accusation. These reforms are meant to ensure that guilty persons are held accountable for their crimes while at the same time safeguarding society from their actions.

The very fact that plea bargains are so prevelant only ensures that marginal evidence can be used to convict people without having their day in court. However, with a reformed investigative system, standards can be applied that better ensure that any evidence gathered either eliminates or strongly points to an individuals guilt.

As for my discussion related to jury selection, my main point is that juries should be established not so much on which direction a juror may lean, but rather on the shared duty of all citizens to take part in the justice system. Too much attention is paid to professional jury consultants in an effort to select someone predisposed towards a prosecutorial or defense viewpoint. Instead, I offer a biasless way for seating jurors. This system would predicate a societal educational effort to inform all citizens that the requirements for jury service and its associated powers are not merely just a way in which to advance ones own moral beliefs, but instead a task which requires the adherence to societal norms and laws.

In regards to forensic evidence, I would again ask you to read the previous post which describes some methods for creating less refutable scientific evidence. In no way do I assume that Hollywood represents real life scenarios, but with the proper guidelines in place, coupled with serious penalties for flagrantly abusing the integrity of evidence, this type of factual information can be offered with much more accuracy.

Reforming the criminal justice system is necessary not to railroad society's law abiding citizens or remove any of the protections against a "police state," but to ensure that criminals are rehabilitated or removed from the general population. It is also a fundamental necessity to return a state of fiscal responsibility to the public arena.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:31:00 +0000

There are a few items of contention that I would like to bring up regarding your proposed revisions to the criminal court system. First and foremost, your essay seems to have an overriding tone that assumes that if someone is charged with a crime, then they are guilty. The fact that the US has protection for its citizens from the police is absolutely essential. It is unfortunate, when victims and families of victims of crimes are left without protection or some sense of justice, but we cannot begin to take away individual protection, because then every citizen could potentially lose. In addition, claiming that “inconcievable defense theories are thrown around as facts,” during a criminal trial is an absurd assumption. Isn’t this an exception, or just an opinion regarding a few specific cases? Would you suggest that the accused not be allowed any defense whatsoever? Simply, most criminal cases do not make it all the way to a verdict. The vast majority of the accused plea bargain their cases. If a case goes to court, then that defendent is either innocent, or believes they have a chance of convincing a jury that they are innocent. As far as your jury selection proposals, you have offered nothing new here, save for the assumption that the jury can be stacked one way or another. Barring total incompetence case by case by one of the opposing attournies, both sides have an equal opportunity to choose which jurors to nix. Our system also concedes that everyone has their own “moral leanings,” but allows the dismissal of jurors who the attournies believe cannot be even somewhat impartial. This point is more relevant then ever with our increased media coverage of not only criminal activities, but also the trials that ensue. How often have we seen an arrest made on TV, with the accused covering their face while being led to a police car? If this person is truly innocent, all of the people that saw that scene, may have been tainted and may have already determined the guilt of the accused. Lastly, when it comes to your “recent leaps in forensic technology” case, again there are vast assumptions made that do not hold true in reality. Yes, DNA evidence is a compelling improvement in forensics, however, evidence is not fact, as is stated in your essay. Nor is DNA evidence so readily available. Our world is not like the CSI shows. DNA isn’t determined in few minutes at the lab. The fact is that most DNA labs are backlogged by months or even years and even then, samples can be contaminated or inaccurate. Fingerprint evidence is even less reliable. There are no agreed upon guidelines in this country regarding how many points make a match and anylaw enforcement officer can be called as an “expert” on fingerprints, even if they have no experience at all. In recent years many cases have been re-opened or overturned do to such inaccuracies and questionable procedures. Calling in to question the evidence presented by the prosecution is essential to defense, because mistakes can be made, evidence can be tampered with or even misinterpreted. In other words, evidence should not be “accepted as factual” as you suggest. If the defense can only discount this evidence as “voodoo science,” then the defense will lose, but they need the opportunity to offer an opposing argument to that of the prosecution. Our criminal court system may have flaws and may be indeed overcomplicated, but it certainly cannot be streamlined in such simplistic terms.

By: M+

M+ — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:41:00 +0000

I agree with you on the Constitutional Education. It should also include The Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers.
I’ll be looking forward to the fewer laws post.

By: Ken Grandlund

Ken Grandlund — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:50:00 +0000

(response to M+)

I would even take it a step further than that by requiring Constitutional Education to be put back into the educational system, beginning at an early grade level so that children grow up learning about the document that enabled this country to begin the path towards freedom and self-government. Include courses on Civic Responsibility and we wouldn't have to poll jurors to find out if they knew what their task was or whether they understood the importance of the job.

As for fewer laws...look for an upcoming essay on that topic.

kg

By: M+

M+ — Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:10:00 +0000

I have long been a proponent of the idea that jurors should have to take a test on some of the basics of the Constitution. It would make the possiblity of a “Jury Nullification” of a “bad” (unnecessary) law much more likely. Possibly even a commonplace occurance. And I’m all for fewer laws… the more laws we have, the further we move away from Constitutional Governance.