It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by spliff4020
The American public are the stupidist people on the planet. We are to easily distracted.
Not to worry. This wont be the last time this happens to him. I predict he'll be dead in 2 years. I dont think he's got anything left in him. Just my opinion.
Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Rich make their own laws. How much longer are we going to take it is what i wonder. They don't pay their dam taxes they don't go to jail for crimes. Look at Ken Lay he is still out no jail period. It's sick how corrupted our system has become time to take it back.
[edit on 14-6-2005 by DiRtYDeViL]
Originally posted by thelibra
- Has the American Justice System become so corrupt that the rich and famous are immune to the law (as long as they have the money to pay the high-priced lawyers), or have we Americans become so jaded as to assume someone's guilt, regardless of a due process that we were not a part of?
The problem is not corruption, so much as a gradual increase in the ways the innocent can be released. Normally, not a bad thing. But, however, due to things like technicalities - which high-priced lawyers are paid to find and exploit- we have all kinds of guilty folk running around the streets the same day that cops jail them.
- If the problem is with the Justice System, what about it is broken?
- My answer would be "the qualifications for evidence and witness credibility". Lawyers aren't really the problem. We may hate them, and they may be slimey bastages, but that's their job. Even if a lawer knows their client is guilty as hell, it's their sworn duty to defend them to the letter of the law. But what really seems to win or lose a case is whether or not evidence is permissable, and whether or not a client's credibility can be destroyed. Evidence critical to proving one's guilt or innocence can be thrown out on the lamest of technicalities, and as a result can either condemn an innocent man, or free a guilty one. As for witness credibility, I think that there needs to be less consideration towards this. A scumbag still has eyes, ears, and/or expertise, regardless of what they did in the past. The only discrediting for a witness should be in the case where either purgery has been committed in the past, or an established history of lying under oath or signature.
It very rarely condemns a guilty man, but instead frees guilty ones. Another major issue that comes to midn is plea bargaining. It's replaced something like 25% of court cases. The lawyers hammer out a deal, so someone who chopped out his girlfriend gets five years instead of twenty-five to life.
- If Americans are just too jaded to accept an "innocent" verdict, what has brought this about, and how can it be resolved?
- It's not about being jaded, it's about the fact that a lot of people are scumbags, period. TANJ. Police do their damndest to put these people away, but the court systems hog tie them.
Originally posted by Bout Time
Meaning, courts have been in place since the birth of civilization - have they ever not paid complete deference to the power elite of that society? Has the prince always skated while the serf hung in town square? Did Martha Stewart go to jail for the exact same thing that George Bush did at Arbusto?