PDA

View Full Version : American Justice System


obi
03-06-2003, 06:25 PM
Why do Celebreties and important people get treated differently in the court room then normal people?

Wynona Rider (spelling?) got away with stealing over $5,000 worth of cloths. She simply got a small slap on the hand. If a working-class citizen got cought doing the same thing, they'd be seeing Jail Time.

Michael Jackson, someone told me today, was finally going to be arrested for sexual acts that he commited a few years back. (I do not know if this is true or not, you know how people gossip) Well, all I can say is IT TOOK THEM LONG E-FREAKING-NOUGH!!!!! Jeeze!

I also heard from the same source that Martha Stuart was going to be seeing jail time. (once again, not sure if true or not) again, i say IT TOOK THEM LONG ENOUGH!

Bill Clinton was going to be impeached for breaking the oath of office (and the wedding vowes), yet he got away with it as well.

So, my question to you fellow chamberererers is:

What do you think about the American justice system, and do you think it is completely fair?

*edit*

Granted, they are getting Robert Blake fairly, but that is just one example.

ImmolatedYoda
03-06-2003, 06:36 PM
well...i would say that celebrities tend to have a little bit more money than the Average Joe, and as we all know, money = power. thats what i think. money, power, and therefore influence.

Reborn Outcast
03-06-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by ImmolatedYoda
well...i would say that celebrities tend to have a little bit more money than the Average Joe, and as we all know, money = power. thats what i think. money, power, and therefore influence.

You forgot the paying off the jury and judges part. :D

ImmolatedYoda
03-06-2003, 11:47 PM
its sorta implied in there, ya know? :D

BigTeddyPaul
03-07-2003, 03:19 AM
How often do you know of a sex addict (admints to orgies), a rapist (got convicted and has been brought up many more times), and a mentally unbalanced man (does take medication) remain a free man?

If you do not know who I am talking about it is Mike Tyson . The worst part is that he only spent a minimum time in jail and gets paid MILLIONS to hit people.

I hate that guy with a passion.

I was watching one of those freaky HBO shows that documented Cannibalism. Every single person that has been convicted of cannibalism has never seen the light of day again EXCEPT this one dude in Japan. He was in England or France and he killed and ate this one woman. He was caught 3 days after her death when he attempted to unload all the "unuseuables" in a park. He went to trial and plead insanity and actually got it. England or France didn't want to hold him so they sent him back to Japan where he was eventually released after a year in the mental hospital there because no one wrote down on his transfer chart that he should not be released. So he walked up to the front desk and signed out. THE ABSOLUTE WORST PART ABOUT IT is that he is a cult favorite over there. People buy his porn tapes, he holds conventions, and does something else that is just ridiculous. People know he is a cannibal and killer and they want his autograph.


The truth is celebrities get off easier than other people because they have money and are in fact celebrities. The only reason Michael Jackson is not in jail right now is because he settled a multi multi millionare dollar law suit BEFORE it reached trial. Martha Stewart just happened to sell her shares before the whole thing tanked? Hmmmmm. Is R. Kelly convicted or not? They had video tapes of him having sex with underage children. OJ Don't make me start. They don't fit (under breath) because they have been soaked in blood and shrank. He also said this before he even put them on. MY GOD! I am honestly surprised no one has shot him yet. He had blood in his car. Who else is out there?

Cal Ripken beat the crap out of Kevin Costner but Costner didn't bring up charges so I guess that is okay.

BigTeddyPaul

Luc Solar
03-07-2003, 03:20 AM
I could rant for hours about this subject, but since I'm in a hury, I'll get right to the very sole of the problem.

The very basis of your legal system is screwed up. I mean, you got A JURY deciding for christ sakes!

A JURY!

You know what a jury is? A jury is a bunch of morons dragged from the street. The second you chose to go with a jury, you also threw rationality and equality out the window.

What does the lawyer strive for? To make the jury agree with him! What will he do in order to accomplish that? Everything, of course!
>> "oooh look at this poor poor beautiful little innocent girlie sitting there in her school uniform (that I told her to put on 'cause her normal outfit would have meant "contempt of court") ooh yes looook at her pretty blue eyes most wise members of the jury, you have children just like her don't you? Would you like your child to be thrown to jail, would you, huh? And she just broke up with her boyfriend before she allegedly murdered all those people because the bastard was cheating on her with her own mother! Think of the pain and stress she is in, hasn't she had enough grief??!"

Ok. Enough.

That's basically the problem. Another problem is your whole messed up laws filled with all sorts of ridiculous escape devices. And putting a lot of weight on precedents (how about...I dunno....solve the matter by making A LAW about it) is not good either. One can find a precedent to back up anything, ANYTHING, if one only searches long enough.

Hey - here's a cool precedent from a while back:
oh teh wisd0m of American l337 judges! (http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/09/13/020916opgripe_1.html)


PS. I watch Ally McBeal. I have no fundamental knowledge of the US legal system. By reading this sentence you have agreed on not to sue me for causing you emotional distress by criticizing the American way.


PS. Emotional distress? Temporary insanity? Punitative damages? Oh please...let's not go there! :D

FunClown
03-07-2003, 06:14 AM
A few months ago in Australia, a police officer pulled over a car because it had no number plate. Anyway, the cop was booking the guy and a 23 year old Muslim saw that it was the leader of the Australian Islamic Council who was getting booked so he came over to the police officer and a scuffle broke out. The Islamic leader complained that the police officer hurt his thumb and is taking the police officer to court.

My question is similar to what Obi-Wan 13 is asking. Why should someone with a higher social status presume they can break the law as a direct result of their status. In this case driving without a number plate, which is pretty suspicious in the first place. I feel sorry for the police officer as he was just doing his job and defending himself against the 23 year old muslim as he should do in my opinion.

Also, smoking is a billion dollar industry. You take it up, and sue for a billion.

Reborn Outcast
03-07-2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
How often do you know of a sex addict (admints to orgies), a rapist (got convicted and has been brought up many more times), and a mentally unbalanced man (does take medication) remain a free man?

If you do not know who I am talking about it is Mike Tyson . The worst part is that he only spent a minimum time in jail and gets paid MILLIONS to hit people.

I hate that guy with a passion.

Haha for a second there I thought you were going to say the infamous:


OJ SIMPSON

Why isn't that bastard in jail. :mad:

BigTeddyPaul
03-07-2003, 08:03 AM
Because he ran very very far with an oblonged shaped ball.

BigTeddyPaul

daring dueler
03-07-2003, 09:23 AM
oj is not in jail because of double jepardy-he was prosected for kiling his wife and the guy but was found innocent by a jury of his peers-then admitted it but they cant convict you of the same crime twice. but he is under close watch by official and doesnt have too much freedom.

C'jais
03-07-2003, 03:09 PM
Money equals better lawyers, right?

As Luc, I can't see the point in a jury.

How can average people with no grasp of justice and the law system be expected to rationally keep their cool, as well as objectively judge a person?

Question: Does the real judge have anything to say about whether or not a person is guilty? Or is it only left to jury to figure out?

Reborn Outcast
03-07-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Money equals better lawyers, right?

Maybe, Maybe not. It all depends. Lawyers do have a part, yes but I think its the fame influence.

daring dueler
03-07-2003, 05:30 PM
yeah more money better loyars thats rite.

BigTeddyPaul
03-07-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by C'jais

Question: Does the real judge have anything to say about whether or not a person is guilty? Or is it only left to jury to figure out?

I have heard of cases where the person was SO OBVIOUSLY guilty and either the prosecution screwed up or the jury is retarded or something and he will allow a second trial. Don't know how often that happens but I have heard it before.

BigTeddyPaul

El Sitherino
03-08-2003, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by obi-wan13
Why do Celebreties and important people get treated differently in the court room then normal people?
uhm cuz they got money and whoever has the money gets the ride. you should also ask why rich people only pay 2% of the taxes(sometimes none) where as average people(i.e. my parents and my friends parents) pay 98% of the taxes. the american government was written by the wealthy and for the wealthy.

El Sitherino
03-08-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by C'jais
Money equals better lawyers, right?

As Luc, I can't see the point in a jury.

How can average people with no grasp of justice and the law system be expected to rationally keep their cool, as well as objectively judge a person?

Question: Does the real judge have anything to say about whether or not a person is guilty? Or is it only left to jury to figure out? but then again if you leave it soley on a judge that can cause other problems cuz it is very hard to get a new judge to hear your case and if the judge has a personal grudge toward you they could abuse their power. i myself have been infront of juries and i tend to find most jurors idiotic. but atleast you can get a new jury by plead of insecurity. (dont ask) but also there is no such thing as justice cuz no matter what happens people feel the suspect should get someting worse. therefore people go into demented state of revenge and can get very very aggresive.

griff38
03-10-2003, 08:43 PM
Power corrupts.......... absolutely. Despite our alledged system of justice those with power and resources have more rights.


No this isn't fair and yes it's unAmerican, but it's true.

munik
03-11-2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by BigTeddyPaul
The only reason Michael Jackson is not in jail right now is because he settled a multi multi millionare dollar law suit BEFORE it reached trial.
Going to jail is not a result of a civil suit trial. You don't settle a criminal trial out of court. You are mixing civil suits and criminal trials together.


Now, on to the jury trial. Personally, I think having a jury is a good idea. Twelve people is a decent amount, and if they can all come to a unanimous decision, that seems fair enough to me. Much better then one person, much better then three.

"A jury is a bunch of morons dragged from the street."
These are the same morons that vote for public offices, and also the same morons that run for public offices. These are the same morons who serve in the military, and the same morons who pay taxes. These morons are me, or my family and friends. You do not need to have an intimate knowledge of the law to be a juror. You will be instructed on the law as it pertains to the case, by both the defense lawyer and the DA, and possibly the judge as well. To be a juror is to be objective, if you are not or cannot be objective you must excuse yourself. If you choose to participate as a juror despite your conflict, it is you who are making a mockery of the justice system. It is also you who may be facing consequences should the truth be found out about you.

Criminal cases can be appealed by the DA or the defense. They could possibly be appealed all the way up to the supreme court, whether it be state or federal. The supreme court decisions are made solely by judges, not jurors. But, these judges were either elected into office by the morons who could serve jury duty, or given their position by an elected official moron who was put into office by morons who could serve jury duty. Regardless, if you hold onto the fact that jurors are morons, that pretty much means everyone and everything is either a moron, or influenced by morons.



Oh, and as to the whole topic of this thread. Celebrities don't get special treatment when it comes to criminal trials. They just get more media attention. Hence the "celebrity" thingy. All these supposed miscarriages of justice that are listed here by people who didn't serve on the jury of those trials could and most likely have happened to everyday joes. They just don't get the media attention, so you don't hear about it. Unless you serve on the jury in their case. There must be countless celebrities that have been convicted, maybe you should compare that amount with the amount of celebrities you believe unjustly went free.

Oh, wait....

Those cases don't make good T.V.

So no one has probaly heard about them.

Except those morons on the jury.

BigTeddyPaul
03-11-2003, 02:43 AM
BUT if the case had gone to trial and there was some evidence or enough evidence to get the investigation then are you saying that there wouldn't be a chane to go to jail for him?

BigTeddyPaul

munik
03-11-2003, 03:16 AM
What I am saying is that you will not go to jail as the result of a civil suit. You said he had a multi million dollar lawsuit against him. That means that someone sued him for that money. Possibly the worst that could happen is he would be ordered by the judge to pay that money to the plaintiff. No jail time at all. People go to jail as a possible result of criminal trials. You said he had a civil suit. They are two different things.

BigTeddyPaul
03-11-2003, 04:21 AM
So I did. My mistake. I meant he gave them money ahead of time so as not to bring the charges up becuase odds are he could have faced jail time with his habits of sleeping the same room as children, his already known peculiar personality, and the fact that some boy was going to say Jackson sexually assaulted him.

BigTeddyPaul

Luc Solar
03-11-2003, 05:13 AM
Good points munik, but...

A jury is a bunch of morons. People are morons. This is the reason why I hate the whole institution of referendums.

Would you prefer that the drunk sitting in the nearby pub performed your heart transplantation instead of a professional surgeon?

My point: Let those people decide who know something about the issues at hand.

This goes for judging someone's crimes as well. Why not let those people decide who obviously are intelligent, experienced, competent and fair? (= A judge or a bunch of judges)

Having a jury deciding is like letting a woman buy a car. She'll end up buying "the red one", cause it fits nicely with the purse she was wearing that day. (do not quote me on that! :D)

I'm under the impression that at least some judges are elected in the USA. That seems absurd. Ridiculous. I'm laughing my ass off. You put up a huge election where winning requires a ****load of money which is collected from different economical powers (like...Microsoft or someone within the oil industry). And after these huge companies have donated millions of dollars purely from the goodness of their heart :rolleyes: to said judge, he is elected.

I can not believe the absurdity of the system. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Just the idea of having an election and donating money to someone who should be 100% impartial in every way seems too ludicrous to be true.

Or is it simply "the American way?" :p

BTW - Even if most jurors could succeed in being "fair" and "rational" (which I do not believe) you still have one problem: Why should people be treated differently? Just because you happened to have a dumb ass jury you go free..? Just because you happened to run into a jury that wasn't filled with idiots, you go to jail? Equality? I think not. :)

munik
03-11-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Luc Solar
Would you prefer that the drunk sitting in the nearby pub performed your heart transplantation instead of a professional surgeon?

My point: Let those people decide who know something about the issues at hand.

This goes for judging someone's crimes as well. Why not let those people decide who obviously are intelligent, experienced, competent and fair? (= A judge or a bunch of judges)
You get twelve people to decide, which I believe is an amount large enough where you at least get one person who isn't an idiot. Your analogy of a drunk and a surgeon are about professional skills. Jurors decide whether a man is guilty of a crime against society. Why shouldn't I be allowed to decide whether someone is guilty or not? Why should a public official be the one who decides, why not individual citizens? Public officials are representatives of society. So having them do the judging for us, instead of us doing it, is the same thing. They are in that position because we believe they will represent our ideas and morals. Being a juror is a chance to participate in a decision that effects society as a whole. Why would anyone want to relinquish that responsibility? It's the basis of our nation, that the government works for the people, elected by the people. Being a juror is part of that. It is your chance to personally participate in the process of government. It's a right just as much as it's a privilage.

I can not believe the absurdity of the system. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Just the idea of having an election and donating money to someone who should be 100% impartial in every way seems too ludicrous to be true.
I'm not entirely sure on this, whether all judges are appointed, or whether some are elected. I'm pretty sure that the higher the judge, those men are appointed to their positions. I believe this is for the exact reason that you described. It would be shady to have them elected, because elections can be tainted. But so too can appointments. It all works on the element of trust, I guess. You must trust that those in power will not be corrupt, or else the whole system would fail.


BTW - Even if most jurors could succeed in being "fair" and "rational" (which I do not believe) you still have one problem: Why should people be treated differently? Just because you happened to have a dumb ass jury you go free..? Just because you happened to run into a jury that wasn't filled with idiots, you go to jail? Equality? I think not. :)
If there was a gross error regarding the decision by the jury, it would become evident on appeal. Remember, you do have the right to appeal a courts decision, and the situation you described is one of the reasons for appeal.

munik
04-22-2003, 04:30 PM
I know this topic is old and dead, but I thought of something today to add to it.

The 6th ammendment states that those accused of a crime must be judged by an impartial jury. This right, just like all others, can be waived if the accused chooses so. That means that if you want, you can be judged by a judge alone, with no jury to decide your fate.

So, for those who said that they think that trial by jury is not a good idea, there is an alternative. The idea to add this came to me when watching an episode of Law and Order. Some girl waived her right to a jury because pictures used as evidence would clearly bias most jury members. So she just went with the judge to decide her fate, as anyone can.

C'jais
04-22-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by munik
So she just went with the judge to decide her fate, as anyone can.

Good info there, Munik.

I'm glad to hear everything is alive and well in the American justice system, after all ;)

BigTeddyPaul
04-22-2003, 07:40 PM
A person does have that right. I don't think they always have a choice (either judge or jury) but they have a choice most of the time. I think.

Anyone heard of the Laci Perterson case? It is a neighboring neighborhood (go figure) and a woman and her unborn child were killed. The father has been implicated and suspected since the beginning and now he was charged just last night. This thing though is getting national attention. I don't know whyyyy. It is times like these how I find it hard they can find impartial people who do not read a paper or watch the news at all.

BigTeddyPaul

munik
04-22-2003, 07:51 PM
Yeah, exactly. I don't know much about that case, as I don't care about it much, but I have noticed how it is plastered all over the media. It has been mentioned that he will have a hard time getting a fair trial because of all this media attention, as it will be hard to find a jury that has not heard of it or one that hasn't already formulated an opinion of it.

The media can taint potential jurors, another reason why someone might want to forego a trial by jury. I'm not exactly how sure it works, but if you desire a trial by jury and the jury selection process keeps turning down jurors because they are unable to be impartial, I think they just keep brining in potential jurors. I imagine that in such a case as this that a jury would also be sequestered to prevent any more media tainting.