It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

corruption & technology render legal system obsolete

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   
We all know of the corruption in todays legal system. There can't be any
arguement to the fact that todays technologies further enable that corruption.
Keeping that in mind as a juror, how can anyone be found guilty of anything?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by randyvs]




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
So you are saying we should abolish the judicial system and go straight to anarchy?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 

thats not it at all. im simply pointing out the fact that no evidence is failsafe
and the system is corrupt. i know if i were on a jury i couldn't give a vote of
guilty in any case unless i seen the person commit the crime right in front of me. show me a film of the perp committing the crime, it could be computer gen. the way things are today no evidence is believable.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Sorry. I misunderstood. I do agree in a way with what you are saying. I have always stated it as that a good lawyer should be able to create a reasonable doubt about anything. I think that was true even before all the pic/vid manipulation tech came about, and even more true now that it is.

I think what a good prosecuter must do is build a framework, a large picture of the accused that shows how the crime is a part of a much bigger picture than just the crime itself.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


now you've got it chum.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


So what you are saying is that if there was a court matter involving a crime in which overwhelming evidence was collected, analyzed and confirmed by experts examining the crime scene, including but not limited to DNA samples, finger prints, hair, body fluids, blood etc, etc, plus several eye witnesses identifying the perpetrator, this all means nothing to you unless someone was standing their filming it the entire time?


Lets say for example, a sick demented mad man hijacked a school bus load of children at gun point and then killed all of them and then had sexual relations with their dead corpses. On his exit he stumbles and bangs his head hard against the top of the exit leaving pieces of hair along with some blood. On the door handle and glass are found his finger prints. Upon exit a police officer shows up on the scene and tries to subdue the suspect. This attempt attracts a crowd before the suspect eventually and unfortunately manages to escape. He is seen by everyone running to a nearby house in which backup arrives and the suspect is arrested and in police custody awaiting trial.

So according to your strange and alarming view, the suspect on trial would not be convicted based on the lack of a camera person shooting the entire event on scene??
Despite the eye witness account of a police officer, a dozen people in the crowd, his DNA, his blood, hair, fingerprints, and his escape to a nearby house, you couldn't convict this sick demented viscous mad man?

I sure hope that any jury duty notices sent out to you get lost in the mail. A sick mad man would escape free of any rightful conviction and prison sentence due to your disturbing logic.

I have heard a lot of strange views and opinions in my lifetime, but this is just WAY out there and WRONG.



posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Shine71
 





So what you are saying is that if there was a court matter involving a crime in which overwhelming evidence was collected, analyzed and confirmed by experts examining the crime scene, including but not limited to DNA samples, finger prints, hair, body fluids, blood etc, etc, plus several eye witnesses identifying the perpetrator, this all means nothing to you unless someone was standing their filming it the entire time?


Ah huh huh! Why do you insist on embarassing yourself ? Where do you get the idea that even film means
anything. I didn't indicate that at any point. If the post is to much for you, I could try to shorten it?

Here's the concept. Technology has brought us to the point that evidence is no longer fool proof.
Corruption? Now days? Extends all the way up to the most highly regaurded people in our society.
Now together you have the corrupt human being willing to use the technology available to falsify any and/or
all evidence. You prolly still won't get it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join