After reading tMR's thread on whether or not the legal drinking age is fair, I realized that this just one of many examples of how our justice system isn't truly serving justice. Firstly, there's tons of people that break the law yet never faced the consequences. For the sake of this debate, forget all of them, and concentrate on the actual laws we have, and whether or not they are just.

Obeying the law and "doing the right thing" are not always the same. There are many loopholes in any country's laws. So many people get off their crimes with lighter sentences, or even completely, because of these loopholes in our laws. Why are lawyers so important? Because they manipulate the laws and find such loopholes to benifit their client. Is it time that the entire system of laws be revised? Or should the richer person continue to have better representation and a better chance of winning court cases?

Also, is the use of a jury truly fair? The guilty party is not always "proven" guilty. Instead, he/she is convicted based on evidence alone. However convincing some evidence may be, it's not solid proof. And the decision of whether of not a person is convicted lies on the shoulders of 12 regular citizens. I bet at least some of the juries decided to put in a verdict just to get the hell out of that jury room. And then there's prejudice - it can be racial, sexual, just about anything. Personal experiences by the jury would also influence their decisions. Now back to the main issue, is justice truly served when the verdict is handed in?

Now, there's the judge(s), and the sentencing. Judges are only human, and as trained and as professional as someone may be, something as simple as a bad day could potentially cost someone an extra 2 years of their life. And again, there's the issue of prejudice, and personal experience. If the judge has a friend who has been raped, would he/she truly sentence a convicted rapist the same way he would sentence a bank robber? As professional as someone may be, would he/she truly sentence a teenage punk with 20 peircings and funny coloured hair the same way he/she would sentence someone more "normal" looking, even if the two committed the exact same crime? Everything affects people's decisions. And decisions made in court can potential ruin an innocent person's life. When the hammer falls, is justice truly served?

Do you mean the USA's justice system or Canada's?

Do you mean the USA's justice system or Canada's?
Any justice system in the world. Canada included, and USA. Without trying to sound like a suck-up, USA does have a very effectice justice system. However, while some systems certainly work better than others, and some are definitely more humane, no justice system can garuantee complete justice to everyone. There's always times when doing what's right and obeying the law turn out to be completely different things.

I wish to comment on this, because I find the justice system in Australia is atrocious.
A man who raped a woman twice was set free, the judge even wished him luck in the future! Supposedly it was okay to rape the woman, because he was drunk. This guy broke into her house, and digitally raped her twice while she lay asleep on her couch.

A man who molested and raped a seven year old girl walked free from court. The judge said it was 'A crime of opportunity' Well duh! When the child's aunt rang to complain, she was told 'If we were to lock all pedophiles up, the jails would be full'.

A nationwide swoop on pedophiles a few days ago saw about 500 people arrested, for child rape, among other thing. Half these bastards are expected to walk free, because of lenient judges. Police have expressed their fears about this already.
The people caught were teachers, priests, doctors, even a childcare center owner.

I would certainly say justice is not being served, especially to the victims of rape.
It is sick, and it needs to change.

What a good topic this close to an election. If people understood how important this election was, they would think twice about casting a vote for a President who could place very 'soft' minded judges onto the Supreme Court. When violator is sent to prison for 10 years after murdering someone thank the soft judges who feel that reform is on the street and not in prison.

It holds true to those who attacked us on 9/11. 'Soft' minded people think that talks and sanctions will change the root cause of why people do what they do. It won't it will make them laugh at your crazy ass in believing their story of that they will change. Please. Criminals and terrorists only care about themselves. If they had an ounce of comapssion they would have known what theywere planning was wrong. They can't be talked to or bargined with. They belong behind bars for the crimes that they commit.

Criminals who are set free are a slap in the face to the families of their victims. Why is it that people can't hold people accountable. I certainly don't want a President who has the ability to appoint 'soft minded' judges to this judicial system. It is filled wiht enough of them as it is.

tMR

This is a pretty difficult subject and I'm no expert so I'll try to be careful.
I suppose the basics of all justice systems is to think : it could be you on the bench. Whether guilty or not. It could be you. And that's why it's so important to have lawyers and as lawyers are people who make money, they want to make more money and concentrate on making it, not necessarily doing the right thing. And they have to defend whoever it is they're defending. No matter what the person did and no matter what the lawyer thinks. Because everybody has to have somebody defending them, as would you have too if it was you being prosecuted.

Is the jury always fair? Possibly not. There are systems that have the jury thing with just common people out of the streets and there are such as in Finland, there are so-called "professional" jurors, in some way it might be a better idea to have people trained in it and have as little prejudices as possible. Although, I do think jurors are chosen in a way, somebody who's to prejudiced can be dismissed, they are interviewed before the trial. But the thing with jury is, once again, about defending the weak, the innocent. Everything has to be taken into account. If there's the slightest chance that the accused is innocent, s/he can't be put away for life or sentenced to death.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that justice isn't necessarily served, but how the heck could it be done better without turning into a totalitarian society? We ca't read minds, we can't know what people did or didn't do unless we were present and even then, there are always doubts of motive and everything. We can't know who's "evil" and who's not. In the end I don't even really believe there's such a thing as "evil" people. People are raised differently, in different cultures. I think the people who were responsible of the 911 tragedy, etc, they were seriously messed-up and sick people and maybe didn't understand what they were doing, but still, they'd been taught to think the way they did, they saw it as something rational and I'm seriously not defending them because what they've done is simply appalling and the poeple responsible should be stopped and made sure that nothing like that ever happens again. But how do you do it? How do you fix the justice system without stepping on human rights? Because it could be you. You could go mad and do horrible things. You might be brainwashed. You might be set up. Anything might happen. How do you make sure justice can always be served just right?

Your idea of justice won't be the same as mine. Furthermore, the impact of any crime is relative... for example, anyone who has recently been burgled might be inclined to think that burglary should carry the death penalty.

What the law has to do is find a workable middle ground that will be most effective as a deterrant, punishment and rehabilitation tool for the most people at the best cost to the public purse. I believe that the UK sustem does that.

You can never please all of the people... not even some of the time.

Reply: NO!

why?

Even my ex-wife is a true hooker, she kept the flat and got all the rights according the law because she's a woman having parental authority. I can see my daughter twice per month (weekends) but she was always close to me EVERYDAY in the past...

In most cases, if you have money things are easier and too often real bastards don't go to prison. :mad:

Justice is a party banter... everywhere!

Evboard Justice may be a solution. Whereas Mods squash dumb assholes along with the economic girly-men... and everybody else minds their own business. This has done well for a long time now, I vote for it to be expanded to new world order. :D

Evboard Justice may be a solution.

TalibanMod rules! :D

Your idea of justice won't be the same as mine. Furthermore, the impact of any crime is relative... for example, anyone who has recently been burgled might be inclined to think that burglary should carry the death penalty.

What the law has to do is find a workable middle ground that will be most effective as a deterrant, punishment and rehabilitation tool for the most people at the best cost to the public purse. I believe that the UK sustem does that.

You can never please all of the people... not even some of the time.


He's right. However, justice as a return to normalacy can be achieved in some cases, and our system does a pretty good job of it.

I heard today that a drunk driver got three years in prision, whereas you can rape a child and walk free from court. What is the world coming too?

I heard today that a drunk driver got three years in prision, whereas you can rape a child and walk free from court. What is the world coming too?
Rape/sexual assault is the only crime that I can think of where the victim has to prove his/her innocence. That's why.

Though about the system of justice, I agree with Head's post.

As well as with the issue of date rape-most of these cases never even make it to court, because a jury won't convict a date rapist-there is too much doubt as to who to believe. So you could go on a date with someone you trust, he could rape you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. That totally sucks-date rapist deserve to be punished, and I don't give a crap about whether the woman went to his place for coffee, and what else were they there for...it's just rubbish, and it sickens me how some bastard can just get away with something like that.

As well as with the issue of date rape-most of these cases never even make it to court, because a jury won't convict a date rapist-there is too much doubt as to who to believe. So you could go on a date with someone you trust, he could rape you, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. That totally sucks-date rapist deserve to be punished, and I don't give a crap about whether the woman went to his place for coffee, and what else were they there for...it's just rubbish, and it sickens me how some bastard can just get away with something like that.
Great points. Your ideas extend far beyond just rape. No matter what the crime is, there is always doubt as to what the truth really is.

As someone facing up to several years in jail, 99.99% accuracy isn't good enough. There's no middle ground between going to jail and walking free. You're either innocent, or guilty. I think that this fine line between innocent and guilty is something that, for the lack of a better term, screw people over. Think it over. Many innocent people are sentenced because the evidence "crossed that line", and many guilty people walk free because there is too much doubt. How exactly do you draw the line between too much doubt and not enough? Because that line will either serve justice, or ruin someone's entire life.

(Sorry, I'm not talking too coherently right now, but I think the idea got through :p)

I understand what you mean about there being doubt, but I think that if a date rape victim were to go into court with her lawyers, the outcome of winning the case isn't high-it's very slim.
And when the jury are informed of the case they are to hear, resonable doubt has already been placed in their minds, as soon as they discover what the case is about. The date rape being a case of he said she said, they have to return a not guilty verdict, because it's hard to decide who is telling the truth.

I just wish there was more consideration involved in these cases...rape is rape whichever way you look at it. When a woman is attacked by a stranger, and no one else is witness to the attack, she can take him to court, and it is likely he will be convicted.
All that is different in the case of date rape, is that the victim knew her attacker, and may have been to a party with him, or something.

Hopefully something will chwnge in the system, that will make these horrible people feel the full extent of the law, instead of just walking free after ruining someones life.


I think that was a little off track, but I am sure you know what I mean.

When a woman is attacked by a stranger, and no one else is witness to the attack, she can take him to court, and it is likely he will be convicted.
No, actually, it is not anywhere near "likely", unless you have come up with enough clues for the police to track him down, and you can actually prove it happened.

And even then, conviction does not automatically = prison time. And even when it does, it's usually not for a long time.

So we may as well say 'If your raped, forget about getting a conviction'?

Because that's what it sounds like. I can't believe how messed up the system is sometimes. I only hope I never get raped, because I don't think I could handle going through all that.


Imagine this. A woman gets raped by a complete stranger. Everyone knows he did it, but at court, he gets set free. No punishment whatsoever for a man who brutally raped a woman. The womans father, say, tracks the rapist down and kills him, which I believe is fair enough, the bastard deserves it. But the father then gets charged, and will probably end up in prision, because he 'can't take the law into his own hands'
Well, if people don't get the appropriate sentences, what are we meant to do? Let our loved ones killer/rapist walk free and just sit back and forget it?

I know that this is a rather contentious issue, and I am in no way supporting rapists of any kind, but:

A guy can be put in a very awkward postion by a girl who claims "date rape." The girl may have acted like she wanted it at the time, and then after further thought (ie: sobering up) she may reconsider her actions and claim "date rape." The same situation does not hold true for a man. If he goes on a date, gets innebriated and has sex with a woman, with whom he wouldn't have slept with had he not been under-the-influence, he can not claim that he was raped, because people will say, "well it's in a man's nature to sleep with a woman." (This is especially true if she becomes pregnant) When have you ever heard of a woman bieng charged with date-rape? I think this is why it is so hard to convict someone of this crime

Before you all attack me, I understand that there are situations in dating where a woman has no control over a man who can physically overpower her, but the "date-rape" charge has been used without discretion to attempt to charge any man who slept with a woman, who later regretted it, with committing a crime. Yes, I believe there are situations where a man deceives a woman into sleeping with him, and she later regrets it. Many would say that providing alcohol and encouraging a female to get intoxicated is a prelude to date rape. I have known many females who encourage males to drink excessively too. It seems though that the date-rape charge claims that it is the man's fault if someone gets innebriated and makes a decision that they later regret.

The problem is that is it really difficult, especially in a court of law, to determine whether or not the contact was uninvited by the woman unless it can be proven that she was given a so-called date rape drug, such as rufinal, which rendered her unconsious and thus allowed a man to take advantage of her, or the man took advantage of her after she was unconscious from alcohol consumption. The former can be proven by a blood test. The later is subject to the "victim's" own story, which can never be proven unless witnessed by an outside party. I think this is why date rape cases rarely result in convictions.

I am all for convicting rapists, but I am against convicting a man of rape when he slept with a woman when she seemed to be willing and then changed her mind.



If a woman gets innebriated and has sex with a man who she wouldn't otherwise sleep with, it's "date rape."

If a woman gets innebriated, tries to drive her car home and crashes into another car, killing a family, it's "driving while intoxicated" and "manslaughter."

Imagine this. A woman gets raped by a complete stranger. Everyone knows he did it, but at court, he gets set free. No punishment whatsoever for a man who brutally raped a woman. The womans father, say, tracks the rapist down and kills him, which I believe is fair enough, the bastard deserves it. But the father then gets charged, and will probably end up in prision, because he 'can't take the law into his own hands'
Well, if people don't get the appropriate sentences, what are we meant to do? Let our loved ones killer/rapist walk free and just sit back and forget it?
Yes, that's exactly what would happen. And I agree, it's bullshit.

Yeah, which is why I guess many people have no faith in the justice system. It's a waste of time going to court. People who steal get more of a punishment than rapists.

You have to wonder what message is being sent to people of society.

The same message as the fact of...


It is more likely to pay attention to a woman, or to someone screaming "Fire!" than if they were to scream "Rape!."

The same message as the fact of...


It is more likely to pay attention to a woman, or to someone screaming "Fire!" than if they were to scream "Rape!."


I know, and that is a very scary thought. :( :mad:

Any legal system has to be very cautious in dealing with rape cases because it would be all too easy to set a precident whereby any woman who slept with a man and later regreted it could claim "rape." That is not to say that rape doesn't occur, and I am in no way justifying any man forcing himself upon a woman. It is just a very difficult and clouded legal area. The main problem is that there is often way to little evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" whether or not rape was comitted. There are obvious cases where forensics can proove forcible entry, but it is still difficult to address mitigating circumstances. Flame all you want, but rape is perhaps the most difficult crime to prove without doubt.

There is also a double standard: Any man who claimed that he was raped by a woman would be questioned before he could even file a report. Additionally, cases where gay men claim rape by another man are similary dismissed.

On a different note, someone who posesses an ounce or more of marijuana in the US can get a more extreme sentence than a murderer. So, yes the justice system is flawed.

Any legal system has to be very cautious in dealing with rape cases because it would be all too easy to set a precident whereby any woman who slept with a man and later regreted it could claim "rape." That is not to say that rape doesn't occur, and I am in no way justifying any man forcing himself upon a woman. It is just a very difficult and clouded legal area. The main problem is that there is often way to little evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" whether or not rape was comitted. There are obvious cases where forensics can proove forcible entry, but it is still difficult to address mitigating circumstances. Flame all you want, but rape is perhaps the most difficult crime to prove without doubt.
I believe you are correct.

But many of those even convicted of rape walk away with nothing more than probation or, at most, receive a few years jail time.

Yet another flaw in the legal system, depending on which country you live in. I believe that there are still countries which will execute a person who is committed of rape, but I can't cite any.

As difficult as it is to get a rape conviction, it seems to be just as difficult to determine the apropriate sentence. Is rape as bad as murder? In a victim's eyes, it may be worse. It depends on the sentencing court though. As I stated previously, many courts believe that posession of an ounce of marijuana is a worse offense than murder. I hardly believe that anyone could provide a logical argument for that, but that's the precident. In many cases the punishment doesn't fit the crime because the legal system is played like a game; each side sets their chips on the table and tries to get the best deal. There is no table of crime and punishment which specifies the retribution required for a certain conviction, it is all up to the judge or sentencing jury (in the U.S. at least)

I believe you are correct.

But many of those even convicted of rape walk away with nothing more than probation or, at most, receive a few years jail time.

I know! But a lot of murderers do too! You except, that when they are convicted, they will get a lengthy jail term, but most of the time it is only a few years...then they are out in like, 18 months for good behavior. It's just not good enough. These people know they can be released if they are perfect prisioners...then they just go and do the same crime again, and the same cycle replays again and again and again.

I know! But a lot of murderers do too! You except, that when they are convicted, they will get a lengthy jail term, but most of the time it is only a few years...then they are out in like, 18 months for good behavior. It's just not good enough. These people know they can be released if they are perfect prisioners...then they just go and do the same crime again, and the same cycle replays again and again and again.
I don't mean to be an ass, but what's with eveyone thinking that anyone ever convicted of a crime would do the same thing over and over again?? Yes, it's prolly more likely that someone with a criminal record would commit more crimes, but that's a pretty horrid way to stereotype people. Hell, stereotyping in general is no good.

I don't mean to be an ass, but what's with eveyone thinking that anyone ever convicted of a crime would do the same thing over and over again?? Yes, it's prolly more likely that someone with a criminal record would commit more crimes, but that's a pretty horrid way to stereotype people. Hell, stereotyping in general is no good. How about this -

For an example, say a child molestor who just got out of prison moved into your neighborhood. Knowing of what he has done before, would you want your children to be around him? Better yet, say he opened a daycare. Would he be an option if you were looking for childcare for your children?

Please be honest, and explain why or why not.

I don't mean to be an ass, but what's with eveyone thinking that anyone ever convicted of a crime would do the same thing over and over again?? Yes, it's prolly more likely that someone with a criminal record would commit more crimes, but that's a pretty horrid way to stereotype people. Hell, stereotyping in general is no good.

Everyone is -capable- of horrible crimes, but when someone actually does something- THEN people get nervous and stereotypical. And its not like the other people are at fault for being stereotypical of a said murderer (who was convicted, but is now free and junk)- the person who did the crime should be ready for consequences like prison, trials, fines, etc. But they should also be prepared socially: people will be nervous around them, stereotypical, etc.

In short, ill hafta quote "For every action, theres a consequence." So in a sense, it is unfortunate that an ex-convict be treated not-so-well socially, but for what they did- they should be prepared for the consequences.

How about this -

For an example, say a child molestor who just got out of prison moved into your neighborhood. Knowing of what he has done before, would you want your children to be around him? Better yet, say he opened a daycare. Would he be an option if you were looking for childcare for your children?

Please be honest, and explain why or why not.
Yes, I understand the uneasiness people feel when next to someone with a criminal record; and you have a good reason to feel that way. What I'm trying to say is give them a chance, and don't automatically label them as being evil and not worthy to socialize with, without knowing anything else about the person first.

Yes, I understand the uneasiness people feel when next to someone with a criminal record; and you have a good reason to feel that way. What I'm trying to say is give them a chance, and don't automatically label them as being evil and not worthy to socialize with, without knowing anything else about the person first.
And you never answered the question. :)

Would you take a chance with your children around someone who has previously molested children?

Because, you know, you should give them a chance.

And you never answered the question. :)

Would you take a chance with your children around someone who has previously molested children?

Because, you know, you should give them a chance.


There is no way on this earth I would let my kids around someone who had milested kids...no fricking way!!!! That would be crazy! The guy could do it again!

I believe that once a pedophile, always a pedophile.

Yes, I understand the uneasiness people feel when next to someone with a criminal record; and you have a good reason to feel that way. What I'm trying to say is give them a chance, and don't automatically label them as being evil and not worthy to socialize with, without knowing anything else about the person first.

I bet this is what some people said -before- the person was convicted. 'He wont do anything bad." or "Give him a chance- hes a good person". Etc etc. =|

They wouldnt really need a 2nd chance if it wasnt for them ruining their 1st one...

And you never answered the question. :)

Would you take a chance with your children around someone who has previously molested children?

Because, you know, you should give them a chance.
Bleh. Turthfully, probably not.

Maybe some people don't deserve that second chance. But maybe some do.

Maybe some people don't deserve that second chance. But maybe some do.

Well, there ya go. Its hard to judge who deserves and doesnt deserve a second chance at being accepted. Like i said, though, the convict should have took into considerations consequences (including socially) of their actions. They wouldnt need a 2nd chance- had they not broken their first.

Maybe some people don't deserve that second chance. But maybe some do.

It's not really about whether the known sex offender deserves a second chance or not, it's whether you want to take that chance with your own children. This is where it becomes less about the offender and more personal.

Personally, it's just not worth the chance as far as I'm concerned.

It's not really about whether the known sex offender deserves a second chance or not, it's whether you want to take that chance with your own children. This is where it becomes less about the offender and more personal.

Personally, it's just not worth the chance as far as I'm concerned.
Yea, I guess that's true. As much as someone might deserve a second chance, not many people would risk giving that person their second chance. Plus you really have no clue whether or not the person even deserves that second chance. What can I say? The world's not a fair place.

Here's a new facet with this debate... the Iraqi "court system".

Today, Saddam Hussein skipped his trial, just because he felt like it. And under the Iraqi law, there's little they can do to make him come back.

Story:
Cnn: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/07/saddam.hussein.trial/index.html
Reuters via Yahoo!: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam_trial

What has this done? Not only Saddam thrown the validity of this 'court' in to question with actions and defiance, he's also thrown one of the top goals of the United States into turmoil, bringing 'justice' to the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi 'court' appears to have no backbone, and was put together hastily by the occupiers to bring an automatic death sentence. Now it has a monkey wrentch thrown into it. By trying Saddam in Iraq, the United States have missed an opportunity cost of an established, more fair trial with the International Court. (And perhaps a more favorable outcome of a guilty verdict... nobody knows if Saddam will be convicted in Iraq).

Another problem with the legal system is that a citizen's rights take precedent over guilt. This is from an SVU ep I was watching (correct me if it's not true-to-life). Cop stops a guy for speeding. Cop thinks guy is acting weird, so he checks the trunk, which contains a corpse. Court determine that the search was unwarranted, cop is discharged, man is set free (due to the fact that any evidence found in an unwarranted search is not admissable in court). Fair?

I think that guilt should take precedent over everything else, and there sould be some wiggle room with these things.

Another problem with the legal system is that a citizen's rights take precedent over guilt. This is from an SVU ep I was watching (correct me if it's not true-to-life). Cop stops a guy for speeding. Cop thinks guy is acting weird, so he checks the trunk, which contains a corpse. Court determine that the search was unwarranted, cop is discharged, man is set free (due to the fact that any evidence found in an unwarranted search is not admissable in court). Fair?

I think that guilt should take precedent over everything else, and there sould be some wiggle room with these things.
But laws against unwarranted searches protect people from being framed and wrongfully accused.

But laws against unwarranted searches protect people from being framed and wrongfully accused.

True. But all things considered, I believe that a judge should be able to decide whether or not evidence from an unwarranted search is admissable, and a body in the trunk would cetainly qualify.

The problem with Law is that it is an imperfect system. In a criminal matter, there are at any given point, no less than 6 different parties contributing to the substance of a case: the accused, the police, any witnesses or complainants, the attorneys and court commissioners, a judge, and a jury. Each party is composed of one or several very human people who are prone to all the foibles of humanity. The system is set up to keep each level as honest as possible, because the system depends on its own integrity to work. If you allow the police to get away with an expedient course, well, they learn from that. The various law enforcement agencies across this country all have legal departments who look for stuff like a judge setting aside rules of lawful search to allow a body in a trunk to be admitted, and then start looking for ways to make that 'special condition' a way of doing busniess. Next thing you know, you have cops fishing by setting up checkpoints and forcing you to open the trunk of your car or be detained... and guess what? It will take ANOTHER judge to undo that, or a legislature to address it, most likely under fire the entire time from the FOP and the press and the conservative "law and order" groups.
In law, there is something called the exculsionary rule, it says that any evidence the police acquire through questionable means, and any evidence obtained through means of that method (also known as fruits of the poisoned tree) are inadmissible, regardless of how damning they are. This actually, belive it or not, protects you from having overzealous police out there just looking for ways to lock you up. Thats their job, you know, and they only way to prove that they are working is in the number of legit arrests or traffic citations or whatever that they can document for the month.
Then we get into the lawyers. Alot of the "rediculous" laws out there are designed to empower and restrict the authority of lawyers.

Anyway, theres my two cents worth.

It could be the philosophy major in me, or maybe just the asshole in me, but it seems to me that if you are going to talk about justice, a definition of justice and from where it comes would be really useful. Actually, if we had an understanding of where justice came from, then that would be really useful in just about every debate on this board, especially the abortion debate. Just talking about justice in the abstract doesn't do any good, since you have no idea if you are talking about the same idea. Actually, maybe I'll just create a thread on it. brb.