The Death Penalty

[retchp]

Don't forget it is really easy to become a "criminal". A few examples are listed above.
Or maybe you forgot some information on your tax forms. Or maybe you got a ticket for reckless driving instead of what you thought was speeding because the cop had a diffeent opinion than you about what you were doing. Or maybe you got upset and slapped your spouse.
Point is...when it is you in the hot seat, you will want ALL of YOUR RIGHTS. And you should get them too.
Some of the posts in this thread come across as very inflexible, which is why I remind you of how easy it is to become a criminal.
Also, with age comes a bluring of that black/white, my way or the highway attitude of youth.
I have personally known murderers, child molesters and rapists. I have personally known people facing the death penalty. Trust me, when it is you or a family member or a friend that is in trouble and branded a "criminal" a lot of that shoot from the lip stuff about "fry the dirty bastard" goes away. You become a little more introspective.
Just my two cents worth.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

How do you feel about the death penalty in CA?

Personally I think if you kill someone on purpose, then you should be killed. If it was accidental, then life in prision. These are just my views.

And for GOD SAKES, if you kill a Cop, you should die.

[TheForceCHP]

agree

[dw]

Not taking a side for or against here, one has to admit it is a tad hypocritical. But then again, much in life (and death?) is hypocritical.

[redhead]

As much as I do not understand the Middle Eastern culture, I can tell you this.

If I were to steal something, I know my hand is going to get cut off.
If I were to rape someone, I know my, um, yeah are going to be cut off.
If I were to kill someone, I know my life will end.


Once again, I don't agree with a lot of what that culture views as correct, but looking and that, I think that punishment meeting the crime is more of a deterrent then anything.

my 2 pence

Oh, and pdp.

[redhead]

kill=murder
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[undertow999]

How do you feel about the death penalty in CA?

Personally I think if you kill someone on purpose, then you should be killed. If it was accidental, then life in prision. These are just my views.

And for GOD SAKES, if you kill a Cop, you should die.

I think this is completely ridiculous. There is no way you should have someone spend the rest of their life in prison for an accident. There is no way you can punish someone so harshly for something that was completely unforeseeable, as an accident is.

Here is a scenario: a person is driving down their neighborhood street, obeying the 25mph speed limit in a residential area. All of a sudden, a young child runs into the street after a ball, and is hit by the person driving. This was complete accident, which could not have been avoided. The person driving did not break any laws, nor was he/she negligent while driving. The basic laws of physics made it impossible for the car to stop in time. The little child ends up dying.

So are you saying, this person should go to prison for the rest of their life, because of an unavoidable, unforeseeable act?

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

Personally I think if you kill someone on purpose, then you should be killed. If it was accidental, then life in prision. These are just my views.

I consider accidental like a DUI for example. You don't go out driving with the intention to kill someone, even though you are stupid enough to drive. I think murdering, and have sexing with little kids dead bodies is far worse and needs to be executed.

Some things you cannot avoid, and those should not be punishable.

Once again, those are just my 2 cents. Feel free to disagree.

[SR-25]

I would also add child rapists to the death penalty list.

[undertow999]

I consider accidental like a DUI for example. You don't go out driving with the intention to kill someone, even though you are stupid enough to drive. I think murdering, and have sexing with little kids dead bodies is far worse and needs to be executed.

Some things you cannot avoid, and those should not be punishable.

Once again, those are just my 2 cents. Feel free to disagree.
According to the law, driving while intoxicated and killing someone is not an accident. Even though the person may have not had the intention to kill the person, the result of him driving was foreseeable. When that person entered the vehicle drunk, he/she gave willful & wanton disregard for human life. But I do not think that a person should be executed even if he/she was drunk and did kill a person while driving. This lacks premeditation & deliberation, which are necessary for a murder 1 conviction.

But I understand, somewhat, where you are coming from. Even though it may seem like these people who drive drunk and kill someone should die for their actions, it is not legally acceptable. But I do think that people who kill someone while driving drunk do get off way too easy. For example, my grandmother was killed by a drunk driver & the guy spent 5 years in prison, even though it was his 2nd DUI.

I don?t mean to come off mad dude; I actually enjoy debating views with people. So I hope you do not take any offense to what I am saying.

[Mac]

I'm an "Old Testament" kind of guy - let the punishment fit the crime. If you killed somebody with a gun, that's how you die. If you raped somebody....well, it sucks to be you! :shock:

I read where they've postponed the latest execution because they were worried that he MIGHT suffer a little pain during the injection of the lethal cocktail. Gee, I don't recall him according the same consideration to the girl he brutally raped and murdered. These predatory, sub-human animals commit violent, brutal crimes and inflict untold pain on their victims, and then we (collectively as a society) get all soft and weepy at the thought that dying might hurt them a little bit. Sorry....I can't muster even a LITTLE bit of sympathy for them. If it were left up to me I'd bring back crucifixion as the preferred means, and televise each one of them on live tv.....now THAT might serve as a deterrent to these would-be murderers.

[SB 405]

I'd myself would be in favor of having them tied and quartered.

[Mac]

I'd myself would be in favor of having them tied and quartered.
That'd work too....just like in Braveheart! :smile:

[SB 405]

Oh yeah one more thing....killers of children go to the front of the line.

[undertow999]

If it were left up to me I'd bring back crucifixion as the preferred means, and televise each one of them on live tv.....now THAT might serve as a deterrent to these would-be murderers.

Haha that reminds me of a george carlin routine were he talked about making the death penalty a game. You would line up the convicted person at the top of a hill. Chop his head off with a gillatine (spelling?), and put buckets at the bottom of the hill and take bets as to which bucket it would roll into.

But I think that staying the execution of that guy because the needle may hurt a little, is rediculousl. If the slightest pain he feels is a little needle pric, and maybe some sickness from the medicine, then he is lucky.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

For example, my grandmother was killed by a drunk driver & the guy spent 5 years in prison, even though it was his 2nd DUI.

That is just unacceptable.

[bcjack]

OK...Here we go...

The death penalty process:

Start an IV (Needle in the vein like on "Emergency")
Slowly inject a large amount of Coumadin or Warfarin into the IV solution.
After about 1 hour of IV fluid/medication administration, cut him on the arm or leg.
When all of the blood runs out, he or she is dead.

Warfarin and Coumadin are blood thinners and anti-coagulants.

[undertow999]

you are bad :badgrin: :badgrin:

My dad takes Coumadin so I knew exactlly where you were going with that one. Pretty creative if I do say so.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

They make such a big deal about having it take 30 minutes before they die. Who cares if it hurts them? They torture, rape and murder people. I am sure they are getting off easy comapred to thier victims. I sitll do not see how people can protest the death penalty.

[x MAIT]

Some of you should be careful when you take your psych orals!

How about this: you are responding code 3 to an officer down call. A child runs out in the street and you run over and kill the child? According to some of you, you should go to jail for life.

Being DUI is a crime but it doesn't make you at fault just because you were involved in a crash. Review the CIM. Example, a duece is stopped at a stop sign. Somebody comes up and rearends him and an occupant of the 2nd vehicle is killed. Who is at fault? Every case needs to be evaluated on its own.

I belive in the death penalty. I have a problem with it taking 25 years to carry it out. It's not much of a deterrent with that much of a time frame. As for the recent case where the judge ordered doctors to be present in case the s___head suffered, I think that the judge should order all criminals to have doctors with them when they plan to commit a crime, so just in case they plan to hurt or kill someone, the victims won't suffer. Fair is fair. Some judges are just plain stupid.

[x MAIT]

Another example for CaliforniaHighwayPatrol. Several years ago 2 LASD units were responding to a call in the Palmdale/Lancaster area. Both are responding code 3 and they collide at an intersection. 2 Deputies are killed. Should the driver of the other unit go to jail for life? This exact same thing happened to 2 LAPD units also, again with 2 fatals.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

Another example for CaliforniaHighwayPatrol. Several years ago 2 LASD units were responding to a call in the Palmdale/Lancaster area. Both are responding code 3 and they collide at an intersection. 2 Deputies are killed. Should the driver of the other unit go to jail for life? This exact same thing happened to 2 LAPD units also, again with 2 fatals.

If it was a accident, then no.

[pupdog]

As for the lastest postponment, it also has to do with the new questions about the credibility of the informant. We don't want to kill an innocent person.

When a teenager I knew was killed in a car accident, I never ever EVER wanted the driver to go to prison for life! It was a very preventable accident caused by teenagers making bad decisions and acting irresponsibly. A few months later when I attended an autopsy for a school assignment, the hard part (besides the smell) was seeing exactly what happens between a car accident and burial, and realizing that her body was in that same condition underneath the pretty prom dress she was buried in. (warning...gets graphic here) This is the same room she was taken to. Her skin peeled back the same way, ribs cut open with possibly those same pruning shears (the examiner said they were purchased at OSH), her guts were in a plastic bag and sewn up inside her chest.
When the judge said any family & friends could speak at the sentancing hearing, my request was that the driver attend an autopsy. See what he did to her. Jail? Maybie a little. I was SO mad that he just got probation, mainly because her mom wanted him in jail for just a few months. I wanted it for her. Put prison? No way, not even for a day! Anyone else ever tour a prison or seen "American Me?"

[Mac]

I belive in the death penalty. I have a problem with it taking 25 years to carry it out. It's not much of a deterrent with that much of a time frame.
I agree 100% - it's absolutely ridiculous. It should be a 6-month appeal period, then the sentence is carried out....while people still remember the crime, and the suffering of the victims.

Put prison? No way, not even for a day! Anyone else ever tour a prison or seen "American Me?"
Yep....I've seen the movie, and also toured a few jails and prisons. Not very nice places. But then again, the people that get sent there aren't very nice either, so it's a fitting place for them. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I've seen the devastating after-effects of DUI collisions many, many, many times. I've spent the vast majority of my career on graveyard shift, where DUIs are the "bread and butter" of your workshift. Life in prison for a fatal deuce crash? I'd have to say it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are a lot of both aggravating and mitigating factors to consider in making such a decision. I've certainly seen cases where it would have been appropriate....but I've seen others where it would be unduly harsh. As I said before, let the punishment fit the crime.

[pupdog]

I'd have to say it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are a lot of both aggravating and mitigating factors to consider in making such a decision.

THANK YOU! It's frightning how many people seem to have such black & white desisions about sentancing!

[SB 405]

Wonder how long before we see Scott Peterson strapped down?....ten-fifteen years?

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

Wonder how long before we see Scott Peterson strapped down?....ten-fifteen years?

Probabally never.

[undertow999]

I'd have to say it should be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are a lot of both aggravating and mitigating factors to consider in making such a decision.

THANK YOU! It's frightning how many people seem to have such black & white desisions about sentancing!

I would agree with you as well. Every case is different. That is one reason why the legal system, especially when dealing with DP cases, is very slow. The apeals process, especially in CA, for a DP case takes alot of years to get through. And alot of people have argued that it takes too long for someone to be executed, and its a waste of money to allow so many appeals. But this I would have to disagree with. I think that if someone is on the verge of being executed by the state, they should have enough appeals necessary to determine if they where rightfully prosecuted and sentenced. The fact is, that no matter how full proof we think this system is, it is a system run and designed by humans. So there is no way to guarentee that an inoccent person wont get executed. I am sure now a days, the possibility of an innocent person being executed is very very slim, but in the days before DNA testing this would not be the case.

Oh, and Scott Peterson probablly wont be executed for at least 20-25 years, if the DP is still used by then.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

Well if you know they are guilty, or they admit to it, then there should be no appeals.

[pupdog]

Than why would anyone confess?

Remember folks, we have a something called the Constitution. I'm very proud of that document myself. A right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. No cruel & unusual punishment. I know it's hard to have a shred of sympathy for killers, but let's not forget what we're fighting for in Iraq right now. We caught our modern day Hitler, we're working on his cronies, and theirs was a country where you were guilty guilty guilty of even having independent thoughts, and punishment was gruesome. I don't want one shred of encroachment on the U.S. Constitution!

[undertow999]

Even if the person does confess, they should still be allowed to appeal. There are so many reasons why people appeal certain aspects of a trial. Many factors go into convicting someone, and sometimes those factors are not ethical or legal. Even if the person is guilty, and confesses, they still deserve a fair trial by an impartial jury of their peers. Also, there have been numerous cases were people confessed to crimes they did not commit. This is one reason why the appeals process is a necessity in our criminal justice system. Just because a person confesses to a crime, does not mean they are actually guilty of the crime. Many factors can cause someone to confess to something they didn?t do. Take for example the big controversy in Chicago a while back, when the governor of Illinois put an end to the Death Penalty for a period of time because of corrupt police officers forcing confessions out of innocent people.

Don?t get me wrong, I am not taking the side of criminals, but even though they may be criminals, they still deserve the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

I am talking about for brutal murders.

[SB 405]

And to think I got my summons for jury duty on March 27th in yesterday's mail

[junebughunter]

I have many, many mixed feelings on this

One of my favorite quotes is from the movie K-Pax which goes...

"You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity. Even your Buddha and your Christ had quite a different vision; but nobody's paid much attention to them, not even the Buddhists or the Christians."

If a loved one...God forbid, were raped/murdered I'd probably kill the criminal myself...but would that be just? There is really no right or wrong answer, something so sensitive varies from each person depending on their individual morals.

With all that said, I guess I am for the death penalty but not completely. If a judge or jury, or someone with a lot of wisdom can honestly say..."killing this person would have no negative effects whatsoever, and only be a vast improvement on society." then I guess you kill them?

I don't know, this is why I want to be a CHP not a law-maker...too many issues for every little issue.

If you are going to kill a man or woman you better know for damn sure it was indeed the criminal, I recently read an article on a man that was "executed" (I'd much rather say murdered because that is in fact what we are doing) and shortly after evidence surfaced that showed, although not substantial enough to prove anything, that he may have been innocent.



One thing I do find appalling is the fact that Scott Peterson got condemned to death row. I don't know all the evidence about it but what I do know, and this is blatant fact, is that there was more evidence against OJ Simpson. They even found his DNA at the crime scene, but DNA evidence was not admissible in court at the time because it wasn't a proven technology yet. than there was against Scott Peterson...so how is it one man walks, and the other gets the death penalty?

Ok, now my head is gonna explode...

[Mac]

...One thing I do find appalling is the fact that Scott Peterson got condemned to death row. I don't know all the evidence about it but what I do know, and this is blatant fact, is that there was more evidence against OJ Simpson. They even found his DNA at the crime scene, but DNA evidence was not admissible in court at the time because it wasn't a proven technology yet. than there was against Scott Peterson...so how is it one man walks, and the other gets the death penalty?
That's a VERY simple one to answer. OJ Simpson was rich and politically powerful, and Scott Peterson was not.

Now you've got me started on the so-called "justice" system. It's not about justice anymore - it's become a farce....a theater in which all that matters is whether or not you have enough money to hire a good attorney/showman (or a team of them!) who have influence with judges and legislators and/or can muddy up the issue enough to confuse a jury of 12 lay people who know nothing about the law, and can't keep up with all the appellate/case decisions that are bandied about in a trial. Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves and gnashing their teeth if they could see what the system they designed has become....it's a total mockery. You can bet your bottom dollar that if OJ Simpson had been an average middle-class guy, he'd be sitting on death row greeting Scott Peterson right now.

They could dispense with a lot of trials and ease the court backlogs by just cutting to the chase everytime - instead of holding arraignments, preliminary hearings, trials, etc., they should just bring defendants in and say "To hell with what you did or didn't do - do you have enough MONEY or INFLUENCE to buy your innocence?".

[SB 405]

And did you ever get a chance to hear any of the jury members from the OJ trial being interviewed after the verdict? Some of them sounded as if they never made it past the 6th grade. Why the prosecution ever agreed to some of these people sitting on the jury is beyond me.

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

Money = Power and Power/Money = Murderer Goes Free

[junebughunter]

It's probably safe to say OJ got away because of who he was, but I believe the actual statistic is that only 1 out of every 4 murderers are caught, or maybe it was 1 out of every 3?

Whatever it is, it's a crappy, yet realistic statistic...no Dr. Suess pun intended

[DESERT RAT]

On another note, I can't believe how backwards our State is in regards to this Death Row inmate, that has a stay of execution because no M.D. will do the procedure. We live in a Country where their are 50,000+ doctors willing to abort unwanted innocent children, but we can't find one who will kill a Low Life peice of $hit on Death Row, what a freaking joke. Our society honors everything perverse and disrespectful and has out right contempt for what is good!

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

I can't see how a lawyer can defend one of these people and tries to keep them from being killed.

[Mac]

I can't see how a lawyer can defend one of these people and tries to keep them from being killed.
Because defense attorneys are soulless creatures who have no interest whatsoever in truth, fairness or justice. The only things they're interested in are money and notoriety - and notoriety only because it brings more money. Establish a rep, then go into private practice and rake in the $$$. You can charge the BIG bucks if you got an acquittal for a murderer, child rapist, etc. that everybody knew was guilty - because that means you're GOOOOOOOOD at what you do.

...Solely my opinion, of course...

[undertow999]

I can't see how a lawyer can defend one of these people and tries to keep them from being killed.
Because defense attorneys are soulless creatures who have no interest whatsoever in truth, fairness or justice. The only things they're interested in are money and notoriety - and notoriety only because it brings more money. Establish a rep, then go into private practice and rake in the $$$. You can charge the BIG bucks if you got an acquittal for a murderer, child rapist, etc. that everybody knew was guilty - because that means you're GOOOOOOOOD at what you do.

...Solely my opinion, of course...

I don?t understand how you can actually say something like this. How is a defense attorney a soulless creature? Is it because they do their job? Well their job is not to set murderer?s free, it is to give people a fair and equal representation when being accused of a crime. I bet you wouldn?t think that defense attorney was so soulless if it were you in the defendant chair. Saying that defense attorneys are soulless, and all they care about is money, is about as accurate a statement as someone claiming all cops are a-holes on a power trip. There are bad people in every profession, defense attorneys and cops included.

I just think defense attorneys get a bad wrap, because for some reason, people think that if you are arrested and put on trial, you must be guilty. I guess everyone forgets about the ?innocent till PROVEN guilty? part of our legal system.

The reason why defense attorneys fight to keep people off of death row is because most defense attorneys are anti-death penalty. They do not believe that the DP does any good, and only creates a barbaric, reactive society. They are fighting for something they believe is right.

Also, most defense attorneys do not make very much money. Provided there are attorneys in the private sector, who make millions, but most defense attorneys have clients who have no money to pay them and they end up doing to work pro-bono.

Also, I think that defense attorneys should get the BIG bucks for acquitting someone if they are innocent. Why not? They may have just saved someone?s life. Also, if someone who everybody thinks is guilty goes free, why is assumed the defense attorney is the person at fault here? What about the 12 jurors who came up with the verdict? What about the prosecutor and the district attorneys office who failed to convict this person? What about the judge, who legally can overturn a verdict? You can?t entirely put the blame on a defense attorney because a guilty man goes free.

[DESERT RAT]

Undertow, you are mistaken and Naive if you beleive what you just wrote! Attorneys take on Death Row cases because it guarantees them a client for the next 10 yrs minimum. They need constant income and they get it with appeal after appeal.

However, the criminal system is not as broken as the civil/juvenile system yet! I think in both criminal/civil/juvenile if you bring forth a lawsuit and lose, you should have to foot the entire bill as a lawyer/lawfirm/DA office(Which is already the case in every courtroom in America, the State pays for the dirt bags defense & Prosecution whether or not they convict or aquitt). If the dirtbags(attorney,client could possibly lose out on money if they lost, there would be a lot more deals and our courts wouldn't be tied up by idiots fighting their speeding tickets/ grilling Officers for 45 minutes for a 350 dollar fine. And then there are the idiots in the Jury, who is in the jury box? I will except that there are a few do-gooders who feel it is a Constitutional Obligation to be a jurist, but most working people find a way to get out of it, because it would mean a loss in income for the month. Most people cannot afford to lose the income, so we have un-employed, ill-educated, career jury persons, which all have one thing in common, they dont know their asses from a hole in a ground and they are deciding, whether "Joe Molester" was set up by the "Poelice"SIC.

It's truly sickening! It's just my opinion, however my major is in Criminal justice.

[Your Mentor]

Undertow999,
I doubt Mac was talking about public defenders. Correct me if I'm wrong Mac, but I think you were refering to payed defense attorneys. Your view of things, Undertow, I dare say, is very nieve. Once you get out there on the road, you're in for a shock. It will become painfully obvious to you when you go up against your first DUI case involving a wealthy individual. When the attorney shows up in a 75K car, and then pulls all kinds of courtroom antics, and then gets his client, the guy you arrested, aquitted, you'll see things much more clearly. Because you will have witnessed the driving, the extreme intoxication, and then you will have witnessed this person getting away with it. And if, before or after said case, you deal with your first felony DUI where an innocent person is killed, you'll really be pissed about that previous court case. Defense attorneys, NOT public defenders, will teach you more about what you need to do and know than any sergeant. Because they will capitalize on everything you fail to do or any minor error you make (even a spelling error in a report). Read of few of these attorney's websites and you'll see what they're after; money. And they make more money than you can fathom.

Any innocence you hold onto, I guarantee you will lose in your first year on the road in uniform. It's called disillusionment; the loss of illusion. It's not a bad thing. See enough highway death and your world will change no matter how much you fight it. Every cadet I ever taught came into the Academy with preconceived valient notions about how they were going to work the road. I dare say none of them held onto those notions.

[Mac]

Well said, YM. Desert Rat made some good points also. Once you've spent some time in the witness box with a defense attorney doing his best to paint you as an incompetent idiot who bungled every step of your arrest, you'll understand where I'm coming from. You were THERE that night and saw the defendant falling down drunk, stumbling around, slurring his words and pissing himself....you KNOW he could have killed somebody, and had absolutely no business out there driving....yet, in the antiseptic environment of the courtroom (if anything so polluted can be called antiseptic), that attorney will use every trick in the book to make it look like you made a horrible mistake that night, and that YOU were actually the one who was screwed up....not the guy staggering around in front of you with puke down his shirt and his pants soaked with urine, who was taking up three lanes of a two-lane roadway. If you think we're exaggerating, save this whole thread to your computer right now, then come back and re-visit it after you have a couple years on the road and have been to trial a few times.

Defense attorneys are trained in law school how to discredit officers, and taught that it's a valuable tactic in trial. Get ahold of any of their training texts and see for yourself. When defending a client is hopeless based upon the evidence against him, they'll do their best to instill doubt in the jury by making it look like the officer is a totally incompetent clown who didn't have the faintest idea what he was doing. They'll infer that you only made the arrest because you were hard-up to meet a quota, or that you're lying on the stand because you'll suffer internal discipline or loss of face within the department if their client is acquited (neither of which are true, btw).

And lest I be accused of rash over-generalization, I'll say that I've met a couple (and I mean a COUPLE) defense attorneys who were principled and didn't play those games. One in particular stands out in my mind - a retired Marine who is extremely respectful during cross-examination, and does nothing more than legitimately present the FACTS of his case and let the chips fall where they may. He's probably the only defense attorney I've ever voluntarily spoken to outside of a courtroom, and is a genuinely good guy.

As YM said, you'll be pissed the first couple times.....then, if you have any instincts of self-preservation, you'll realize that you have no control whatsoever over a jury's decision, and getting pissed about it is futile. You'll learn to just take solace in the fact that you were doing your job that night (or day), and you got someone off the street who could have killed or seriously injured an innocent person.

...I bet you wouldn?t think that defense attorney was so soulless if it were you in the defendant chair.
If I committed a crime and knew I was guilty, I wouldn't be in the defendant's chair any longer than it would take to plead guilty and take my medicine like a man. It's called honor, and taking responsibility for your actions - concepts which are largely lost in today's society.

[pupdog]

Badge or no badge, I think everybody is making some excellent points. Undertow seems to realise that not every person is the same. I mean, don't we hate it when a crooked cop gives all the rest a bad name? Generalizations can be pretty ugly!

Because you will have witnessed the driving, the extreme intoxication, and then you will have witnessed this person getting away with it.

This is a strong argument that spending the money to put cameras in cars is worth it!

[retchp]

In my opinion one thing that might go a long way in fixing the broken legal system would be to make a new civil service classification in the state called "Trial Juror". To get such a job, which should pay between 50,000 and 75,000 per year, you would need at least a high school education, have to pass a written test and an oral exam. Then you would be part of the "jury pool" in whichever county you live in or moved to once you got the job. Each county would have these "Trial Jurors" available and they would just be randomly assigned to cases going to trial. It would eliminate the need for the BS of Jury selection. It would be very fair because the jurors would be randomly selected from a pool of qualified intelligent people who are well paid for their services. Things would get expedited and the system would move much faster.
Also, their names should not be divulged to attorneys, officers or defendants. Just have the court clerk randomly assign 12 numbered jurors to a given case and stand back and watch the system work.
I think I would love to be such a juror. I would willingly come out of retirement to be one. Anyone think this idea has merit or problems?

[Your Mentor's Son #1]

It sounds like a good idea to have paid jurors. Then people who can't make it to that jury duty stuff won't get in trouble. It'd be less stressfull to the average adult, because then they wouldn't have to deal with the hassle of going to jury duty.

[SB 405]

I'd be in favor of any program that will get rid of the $5.00 a day muttin' heads we get on some these big well known trials. Only set back I can see with that idea ret. would be budget. The cost of hiring enough people to rotate within the system and not become a "known face" in the court houses would be massive. I'm scheduled to be up for jury duty on the 27th of this month and I know it may sound strange but I'm kind of looking forward to it. If for nothing else to see what the mix of people are like.

[Mac]

In my opinion one thing that might go a long way in fixing the broken legal system would be to make a new civil service classification in the state called "Trial Juror"....
Interesting you should say that....my sister-in-law dated a foreign exchange student from the Netherlands for a while when she was in college, and he said that's exactly how they do it there - they have "professional jurors". He was very amused by our system, and wondered how we expected lay people with no formal knowledge of the legal system to understand all the ins and outs of case law, etc. and render a competent verdict.

The system we have worked fine in the age it was conceived in - everything was much simpler then. In modern society, the system has become so complex and technical that the average person can't intelligently sort through all the wrinkles (which often is what attorneys hang their hat on). For most people, their only "knowledge" of the legal system is from television (and we all know how accurate THAT is!) Expecting lay people to serve competently on a jury nowadays is akin to hiring a fast food busboy to design microcircuits....without the proper training, it ain't gonna happen.

[Your Mentor]

Pupdog,
Good point about the cameras. Believe it or not, however, sometimes those videos do more harm than good in court. I'll explain. We have found that for high blood/alcohol cases, where the defendant is falling down drunk, the video is awesome and usually result in a plea; never having to disrupt the lives of others with a jury trial. However, with lower BAC cases, like .08%, the videos are too fuzzy to show the minute details that officers see up close. For example, the videos, no matter what the BAC, can't show horizontal alcohol gaze nystagmus (HGN). Most tolerant drinkers can look pretty good on a video at an .08. These high paid attorneys have capitalized on it. Also, we're too big an agency. The video systems have been tossed around for years. The cost to outfit all of our cars would be astronomical.

[retchp]

405, if you mention during jury selection that you know officers and post on this forum you will be bounced like a speed ball by the defense. Also since you are in mamagement that might be a strike against you too since you cannot possibly be dumb enough to have the wool effectively pulled over your eyes.
I would love to be on a jury. I have the time and the experience to be an effective juror, but it will never happen. I would be fair and impartial too, it's just that they look for a certain type and most people who post on here would not make the cut.

[SB 405]

I'm sure I will be asked some questions although I have no idea what about. If I were in fact asked about something such as this forum I'd have no choice but to be honest. How about if I really throw them for a loop and show up wearing a dark suite:lol: I bet they couldn't show me the door fast enough.

[Welpe]

I was considering showing up to my last jury duty summons sporting a shirt with the picture of Judge Roy Bean on it and a noose over my shoulder.....too bad I didn't end up having to go. :badgrin:

[pupdog]

Good point about the cameras. Believe it or not, however, sometimes those videos do more harm than good in court. I'll explain. We have found that for high blood/alcohol cases, where the defendant is falling down drunk, the video is awesome and usually result in a plea; never having to disrupt the lives of others with a jury trial. However, with lower BAC cases, like .08%, the videos are too fuzzy to show the minute details that officers see up close. For example, the videos, no matter what the BAC, can't show horizontal alcohol gaze nystagmus (HGN). Most tolerant drinkers can look pretty good on a video at an .08. These high paid attorneys have capitalized on it. Also, we're too big an agency. The video systems have been tossed around for years. The cost to outfit all of our cars would be astronomical.

Ok, how about this: I've got a margeous itty bitty digital camera that also takes video. I use a cell phone holder as it's carrying case (my boyfriend actually bought this particular one for me because it will hang horizontal or vertical, and he was thinking of how someday it will hang from a CHP officer's belt). Many cell phone holders have a clear plastic keypad cover. Could I have my camera in there on my belt, making a video of the stop?

I can see that the department might not want to buy every officer a digital camera. It's my personal camera that I'd voluntarily use for work. Is that allowed in court?

[CaliforniaHighwayPatrol]

Well I went on another ride along today and the officer was talking about using a voice recorder, because you can tell when the words slur. Also he said it is good in cases because he can tell what kind of drug or alcohol they are on because he is a DRE.

[bcjack]

Welpe:

I have heard of people doing what you proposed, AND I have heard of Judges getting pissed and holding people in contempt for it...:shock:

[SB 405]

We had some gal here in LA awhile back pay a citation by check in the mail and wrote F.U. on the memo line of the check. The court wasn't happy to say the least and ordered her to re issue another check. One needs to be very careful when dealing with the court system.

[Your Mentor]

As was discussed in an earlier thread, a few months ago, it's perfectly legal to record things, audio or video, during a traffic stop. This is because there is no expectation of privacy during a detention of any kind. As for using a camera, it isn't that easy; besides, we aren't allowed to wear our cell phones in plain view on our uniforms. I know, I know, plenty do so but it's against policy. Anyway, most of us on the road have cameras, digital and film. Again, taking photos while trying to conduct SFSTs isn't safe at all. And there are camera systems available today which the officer wears instead of mounted in their unit. All of this is pretty much academic though because of the size of our agency. The cost is just too high. Welcome to state-level law enforcement. Smaller agencies get them because of grants and different budgeting methods. Besides, the CHP would have to study any new system that takes a couple of years. Our K-9 officers had in-car cameras for a short time but they had so many problems with them (not working when they needed them, etc.) they stopped using them. One of the problems is there is little tech industry interest in developing LE technology. So the equipment is either very expensive or not fully developed. In a perfect world . . .

[Mac]

YM - The Department is testing in-car cameras again as we speak. There are several areas in the midst of the test period. However, as I said in another thread, the equipment is archaic and outdated, and is receiving pretty poor evaluations. It uses VHS tapes and is pretty high-maintenance in terms of having to reload tapes every couple of days, and archiving is a major PITA....not to mention the possibility of running out of tape in the middle of a shift. Murphy's law being what it is, it's predictable that the tape will run out right when you want/need it most. If we're going to do this, we should be using digital technology with archives d/l'ed onto a high-capacity hard drive and backed up via RAID. The technology exists and other departments across the nation are using it. If you look at any of the police industry magazines, there are multiple systems on the market that are leaps and bounds beyond what we're testing.

[dw]

Regarding defense attorneys, they absolutely have their place in the criminal justice system. There are a relative few high-profile attorneys around anymore who take the big (OJ-type) cases. I have a couple friends who's parents did very well in the 80s in criminal defense. There was money to be made, and I would argue it was more respectable in the past. In recent times, the defense is sinking lower and lower to defend their clients. Yes, they're supposed to defend their client as best they can, but ethics still plays a role.

It is acceptable for a defense attorney to get his client off with a CS argument that has no bearing on the case, but law enforcement is held to ethical standards. Some of the tactics used by defense is akin to an officer planing evidence or falsifying an arrest report. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember reading in Lawrence Taylor's DUI Defense book that (paraphrasing) if all else fails, just confuse the jury, because a confused jury won't convict. To actually state that in a textbook shows how low they've sunk. When EVERYONE including the defense knows full well the defendant committed the crime, what happened to owning up and getting the best deal you can. To attack actions, policies, and procedures of law enforcement in an attempt to get your guilty client a freebie is unethical and a mockery of the justice system. Clearly, there are cases that fall into a "gray area," rising/falling blood-alcohol for example, where there is a legitimate case to be made for the defendant. I have no heartburn with that -- if there is truly a question as to guilt, then it should be argued to a jury. But to argue that, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt, your client who was .20% BAC when he murdered someone in his car, should be let off because the officer made a clerical error in his report, is ludicrous. Not only are they taking advantage of the justice system, but they are taking advantage of their client by accepting money to put on a show.

[Your Mentor]

Mac,
That's the problem when the technology doesn't produce a profit. Since our equipment is subject to budget restrictions and, unlike US Defense contracts, we don't issue contracts to produce new technology, we will always be eons behind the times. There is no way we'll EVER have the technology we need.

[Cameron]

DW- wow. That was really, really well-said. I plan on getting my JD someday, maybe be a prosecutor. Who knows. I certainly wouldn't make as much as a defense attorney might, but I'd be able to sleep well at night.

You were right with your initial post. The death penalty IS indeed hypocritical. I believe it is a necessary hypocrisy.

Gangs are just as well-organized in prisons as they are on the streets. Criminals face the same dangers, the same hierarchy, the same hatred of people in uniform in both places. I believe that, as we are faced with a criminal mentality that WELCOMES the idea of spending some time in prison, a more drastic punishment must be available.

For people whose actions are not deterred by ANYTHING, perhaps the active existence of Capital Punishment in our state might give these criminals pause before they unload their gun on an innocent. Or, God forbid, an LEO.

[Mac]

...Some of the tactics used by defense is akin to an officer planting evidence or falsifying an arrest report...
Yep. That reminds me of one of the best replies I've ever heard used by an officer in court. One of the very senior (4000 ID) officers I worked with in my early days was undergoing a rather nasty cross-examination by a snide defense attorney, and after the officer replied to one of the questions, the defense attorney sighed theatrically and asked "Officer....do I need to remind you that you are under oath?" (a ploy to plant in the jury's mind that the officer is lying). The officer replied "No, counsel - I'm well aware that I'm testifying under an oath to tell the truth....just as I am aware that YOU are NOT". :badgrin:

Many people don't realize that attorneys are not under oath, and have no obligation to tell the truth in a courtroom - whereas witnesses (both officers and civilians) are required to take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". The attorney went absolutely sideways when the officer made that reply - tried to get it stricken from the record as non-responsive, etc. The judge ruled that the officer had answered the question, and let it stand.

[SB 405]

405, if you mention during jury selection that you know officers and post on this forum you will be bounced like a speed ball by the defense. Also since you are in mamagement that might be a strike against you too since you cannot possibly be dumb enough to have the wool effectively pulled over your eyes.
I would love to be on a jury. I have the time and the experience to be an effective juror, but it will never happen. I would be fair and impartial too, it's just that they look for a certain type and most people who post on here would not make the cut. I made my daily call today to see if I need to report for jury duty and I've been instructed to report to the courthouse at 8:30am tomorrow morning. And guess what court????.....TRAFFIC COURT!!! Now ain't that the kick in the butt. :lol: given the fact I hang out here with a bunch that work with traffic for a living.

[SB 405]

Not that anyone really cares but I like sharing my story anyway....Going back today at 1:30pm to be interviewed by the attorneys. I suppose this is set up to see if I give them the pre trial answers they want. I spent most of yesterday sitting around the jury room until about 3:30 at which time I was assigned to report the Division 75 but the judge cut us loose because it was late in the day. Let me also add.....I can't believe the way some people dress when entering a court buliding reporting for jury duty.:rolleyes: IMO I think the way a person is dressed in a court of law says a lot about that person.

[retchp]

Oh, we care 405, we are just waiting to hear why you get booted.:lol:

[SB 405]

Oh, we care 405, we are just waiting to hear why you get booted.:lol: As strange as this may sound ret. I hope I make the cut today because once the process get's rolling I find it interesting. I was told yesterday most traffic trials are in the 3-4 day period. I was in court all day and yet only saw one LAPD motor cop in the building the entire day. I thought you guys spent a lot of time in court,or do you not wear your uniform to court? I did see a couple of guys in some cheesy suites and thought they dressed like cops:lol: .....kidding guys,just kidding.

[SB 405]

Well just got home from court, I'm done....not because of anything I said but a plea bargain was agreeded upon so the trial was cancelled. Never even stepped foot into the courtroom today.

[retchp]

Thugish looking guys in bad suits with bad haircuts...had to be cops:shock: