The Justice System and KC

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JBean

Retired WS Administrator
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
52,738
Reaction score
84
Maybe we can have a frank discussion about our justice system and how it relates to KC's trial.
This is not an opportunity to bash LE the FBI , or our justice system as a whole.
But rather, we have posters that see perceived weaknesses in our justice system and perhaps we can have an honest discussion about that. I don't mean only favorable comments are allowed, but if you have issue with something please be specific as to what you mean and be constructive in your criticisms.



I am bringing over some posts from another thread so please hang on.
 
This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
 
tracy87 said:
This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
Click to expand...



Justice is not taught in law schools. Trial attornies advocate on behalf of their client. Prosecutors advocate on behalf of the People. Defense attornies advocate on behalf of the defendant or defendants.

In the minds of most defense attornies and prosecutors, a trial is not about a search for truth or the pursuit of justice. Rather, it's about winning. And to the extent that judges rule certain evidence to be admissable or not, consider the motions that precede such rulings to be but a means to an end; i.e., winning.
 
tracy87 said:
This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
Click to expand...
The problem is you direct your question to the attorneys - when in reality an attorney is just en extension of the client. Therefore, your question is best analyzed from the perspective of the client.

So would I hold it against an accused person for objecting to incriminating evidence being used against them? Not a chance.

Just like I would never hold anything against an accused person for trying to introduce exculpatory evidence to prove their innocence - no matter how questionable the evidence was.

And why is that? Because a judge, not the attorneys, decides what is admissible and what is not. The attorneys are just the advocates for the respective sides.

And ultimately, even if a judge admits evidence into a trial, a jury is free to reject the value of the evidence entirely.
 
Isn't that a little simplistic? So Casey said I don't want to die and AL said I know what you are trying to say - I'll write ten motions? I was going to add something about Baez but decided it might not be appropriate. My point is - don't you think that answer is a little pat for explaining what defense lawyers do?
 
Wudge said:
Justice is not taught in law schools. Trial attornies advocate on behalf of their client. Prosecutors advocate on behalf of the People. Defense attornies advocate on behalf of the defendant or defendants.

In the minds of most defense attornies and prosecutors, a trial is not about a search for truth or the pursuit of justice. Rather, it's about winning. And to the extent that judges rule certain evidence to be admissable or not, consider the motions that precede such rulings to be but a means to an end; i.e., winning.
Click to expand...

If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they believe the person is guilty and then did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

Please name a better system of Justice.
 
CDMORLANDO said:
If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

Please name a better system of Justice.
Click to expand...

I think we do have be best system of justice. I think part of the problem is that both sides are not always equal in their representatives and both sides don't always use the same ethics or disclosure. The truth is the truth no matter what the answer is.

What would your advice be to the prosecution on appealing to the jury's sense of justice?
 
tracy87 said:
This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
Click to expand...

That's why I really don't have a lot of faith in all of the rules regulations, and technical nonsense that effect criminal cases. It's more about the procedure and formula than justice or truth.
 
CDMORLANDO said:
If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they believe the person is guilty and then did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

Please name a better system of Justice.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that I'm a champion of a particular system of jurisprudence practiced in another country. I meant only to provide Tracey with my view on where truth and justice truly rank versus winning.

Though if it were up to me, I would bring a practice or two from other countries to America.
 
cecybeans said:
and

c. because they are waiting at the bus stop and she wants to be nonchalantly looking the other way when they get hit
Click to expand...

Good point. I also don't think Casey cares the slightest bit about either George or Cindy. It would probably make her uncomfortable to see them and she seems to lack any kind of meaningful attachment to anyone on this planet, so why would she bother? I do think she sees Lee as a sort of companion, but still I don't think she has genuine feelings for anyone. jmo
 
logicalgirl said:
Isn't that a little simplistic? So Casey said I don't want to die and AL said I know what you are trying to say - I'll write ten motions? I was going to add something about Baez but decided it might not be appropriate. My point is - don't you think that answer is a little pat for explaining what defense lawyers do?
Click to expand...

Not to mention that AL is simply using casey as a means to fight her bizarre personal war against the death penalty. She thinks she is 100% right and is using the courts to force her beliefs on society. That is not what courts are for, that is what the legislature is for. I don't understand why the attorneys are allowed to use the courts as a tool for their idealistic crusades.
 
Wudge said:
I didn't mean to imply that I'm a champion of a particular system of jurisprudence practiced in another country. I meant only to provide Tracey with my view on where truth and justice truly rank versus winning.

Though if it were up to me, I would bring a practice or two from other countries to America.
Click to expand...

Since you was the last poster and I quoted you, it may have appeared to be aimed at you.

I intended to make the more general comment that while a "bad" system no one has designed a better system.

No one would want a system that defense attorney decided (as a Jury of one) that someone was guilty and therefore did not try to win.
 
thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

apparently not.

i know this is way off topic.

but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.
 
CDMORLANDO said:
If the Defense does not try to prevail "win" our system would fail. If the prosecution does not believe the person committed the crime they should not prosecute. If they believe the person is guilty and then did not try to prevail (win) they should be fired.

Please name a better system of Justice.
Click to expand...

i agree totally with this statement. i would not want to live under any other justice system. as a WHOLE i agree with the "justice system". BUT when i look at specific pieces...well i just don't know.

he admitted it, dna proves it....but his atty can get it "thrown out", and now he walks. people can say, oh well...that's how our system works. the total good outweighs the tiny part of the bad.

BUT then i look into the eyes of the victim, the eyes of her mother. i see my parents and the staggering weight they carry...well i just don't know.
 
tracy87 said:
thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

apparently not.

i know this is way off topic.

but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.
Click to expand...


(This ........ caused me to laugh until my stomach hurt.)

Trust me. It's not an everyday occurrence that someone hires a defense attorney with the hope they will get their new client to 'fess up'.

(God bless you. I hope things work out for the best, whatever that might be.)
 
tracy87 said:
This is directed at all attorneys, not just defense attorneys. Would you agree that when arguing whether or not evidence is admissable, it's NOT really about the admissability? It is all about "winning" for your "side"?

For instance...defense is arguing that the Body Farm air test results are "junk science" and are going to argue that they are inadmissable. BUT, if the results were in KC's FAVOR, the defense would be arguing FOR the results to be admissable.

In other words, lawyers (defense and prosecution) don't really care if evidence is admissable or not. They could argue FOR "ABC evidence" in one case, yet argue AGAINST "ABC evidence" in another case, depending on how it affects their "side."

How does that ultimately affect pursuit of justice? Does it really come down to who argues the best? Is "truth" even what is being sought?
Click to expand...

YES :( it is too late....
He who has the mightiest tools wins.
 
tracy87 said:
thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

apparently not.

i know this is way off topic.

but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.
Click to expand...


(Sad sigh)
My stomach hurts, too, but definitely not from laughter.:sick:

Ah, integrity.
 
tracy87 said:
thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

apparently not.

i know this is way off topic.

but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.
Click to expand...
It is our right to have an adequate defense. If the evidence was collected properly and no rules were broken, then it should be used against your brother. if the evidence is thrown out, I assume there is a reason for it and it is as it should be.LE needs to follow the rules and if they don't we all suffer.
I want those rules in place if I ever need them, I think most are designed to protect the innocent but it obviously doesn't always work that way.
 
tracy87 said:
thank you wudge and rhornsby. i understand and respect your replies.

recently my brother was accused of a particularly horrible crime. i hired him a "high-profile attorney" (lol) here in ft myers. in my naivety i was searching for the truth. i did not want my brother to "get off', rather i wanted him to take responsibility for his crime if he indeed was guilty. i hired the attorney to make sure he was informed of his rights and was getting good advice and to be his "advocate".

imagine my surprise when the first thing the attorney told me was, do not ask him if he is guilty and i (meaning the atty) will never ask him either. apparently, there was dna evidence, and a taped confession implicating my brother. the atty said, don't worry we are working to get the evidence thrown out. i said, but, but, but....if he committed the crime, he should take responsibility, right?

apparently not.

i know this is way off topic.

but, i just don't understand defense attorneys.
Click to expand...
Are you saying you only hired a high profile attorney to make sure he knew his rights and act as an advocate?
Did you consider a public defender?
 
Wudge said:
(This ........ caused me to laugh until my stomach hurt.)

Trust me. It's not an everyday occurrence that someone hires a defense attorney with the hope they will get their new client to 'fess up'.

(God bless you. I hope things work out for the best, whatever that might be.)
Click to expand...

i am glad i provided you with such humor! actually, i hired the defense attorney at the pleading of my parents and my brother's children.

altho, i believed he was guilty of A crime, i wasn't sure if it was THE crime he was charged with. i had hoped his defense attorney would be sure the TRUTH was discovered and my brother was convicted of the crime that he had committed.

i wanted his victim to have justice. that is kinda funny, isn't it? well maybe not funny, but kinda rare.

thanks for the God Bless. My brother died unexpectedly, so depending on who you ask, things did work out for the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 190 more.
Total: 4,139 (members: 191, guests: 3,948)

Online statistics

Members online
191
Guests online
3,948
Total visitors
4,139
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,527
Messages
17,953,737
Members
228,520
Latest member
sanayarford
Back
Top