Why Is It So Hard To Put Obviously Guilty Criminals In Jail?....

[global1]

How did all these laws and 'technicalities' get created that seem to protect the criminal these days?

Did these laws and 'technicalities' get established by lawyers - so that they could insert themselves into trials for a long period of time to build up their billing hours?

We're seeing all these 'technicalities' come to light with this Highland Park shooting as well as seeing how all of the Tr**p criminals use the law to delay and find loopholes to evade accountability.

What did we do before GPS systems that are able to track the trajectory of bullets from the shooter to the person hit/killed and beyond? Why do we need such technology to put into evidence? Before GPS certainly - criminals were found guilty and jailed.

These days it seems like the law is more on the side of the bad guys than the good guys.

What's the story here?

[moonshinegnomie]

1. who decides obviously guilty?????

[global1]

4. So You Don't Think Crimo III Is Obviously Guilty?....nt

[elleng]

10. He's pleaded guilty, he IS in JAIL now,

will likely spend the rest of his 'life' in PRISON.

[Effete Snob]

14. I know right?

He’s in jail right now, so it doesn’t seem all that hard to get people in jail.

Weird OP.

[Dr. Strange]

21. But he should really be in jail.

Like, jail him hard. Really, really hard.

[Effete Snob]

23. They should build a jail IN the jail and put him in that!

[Effete Snob]

12. He is also obviously in jail

Why are you saying it is hard to put people in jail, and then using as an example someone who is IN JAIL RIGHT NOW.

Wtf?

He hasn’t been fully charged or tried yet and, if this is like MOST criminal cases he will plead guilty.

But he is most certainly in jail.

Did you not know that?

Crimo is in jail, and is most likely never getting out of jail.

[MineralMan]

26. Uh, he has already confessed.

You must have missed that.

[Bettie]

11. Well, cops see skin color and decide guilt

and carry out the executions on a pretty regular basis.

Our system lets white men with money avoid prosecution for nearly everything. I mean, do you think Matt Gaetz would still be avoiding charges if he wasn't rich and white?

[Effete Snob]

19. The OG Grand Jury

Each state has an “Obviously Guilty” Grand Jury just for this purpose. They decide which criminals do or do not have Constitutional rights.

[multigraincracker]

2. But they can put 60 bullets into an unarmed

person with dark skin.

No Justice, Just Us.

[Hugin]

3. Their right to a vigorous defense.

Technicalities are how the indefensible is defended. Until the cash runs out.

[sarisataka]

5. Fukin' innocent until proven guilty

We know who is guilty. Amiright?

Just some words from a dusty, obsolete document-

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Renaissance Man]

6. Constitution? Federal Rules of Evidence? Rules of Criminal Procedure?

It's not about whether it's hard to put obviously guilty criminals in jail. It's about rules that were developed to ensure that if the government is going to convict someone of a crime, it better have the evidence, and it better follow the proper procedure in doing it.

Does it suck that people can appear guilty as sin yet still not be indicted for a crime? Yes.

Does it appear as if though the wheels of justice run sometimes horribly slow? Yes.

... but, the Constitution!

Unless you want to throw due process completely out of the window and just convict someone without a trial (which is what is done under fascist and totalitarian regimes), that whole jury of your peers, the right to confront adverse witnesses against you, and every other right contained in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution are just words on paper.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Mmmmmm sounds kinda fascist ngl

[Effete Snob]

8. " it seems like the law is more on the side of the bad guys"

Which is exactly the way it is supposed to be.

Have you ever looked at the Bill of Rights?

Fourth Amendment - it protects the rights of people suspected of crimes.

Fifth Amendment - it protects the rights of people accused of a crime.

Sixth Amendment - it protects the rights of people charged with a crime.

Eight Amendment - it protects the rights of people CONVICTED of a crime.

There is not one amendment - indeed there is not ONE WORD - in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that has jack shit to do with the rights of victims of crimes.

If you have a problem with that, then you really need to find another country to live in. Because in this country, we intentionally stack the deck against the power of the government to lock up people, take away their stuff, or kill them - ESPECIALLY when the government believes they are criminals.

[Bettie]

16. I think the problem is that in order to use any of these protections

you have to have resources. If not, well, you have zero protection against abuses.

If you have resources, you can commit any crimes you want (as long as they aren't against other rich white people) short of public murder, and usually get away with it all. No consequences, well, maybe a fine.

[Effete Snob]

17. Absolutely

But the OP picked a weird case for this particular rant, since the person he’s upset about is, in fact, in jail.

[Bettie]

18. Yes, but I see the frustration

this is a person who had obvious red flags and was still able to legally acquire a firearm and kill a bunch of people.

So I think it is mostly emotion speaking. But, mass shooters do end up incarcerated most of the time. Though, with this one, he has a rich daddy.

[treestar]

9. they were invented by judges and by constitution makers

lawyers argue both sides of them, depending on who they represent.

The evidence rules are to help assure reliability and genuineness.

They are not loopholes. If you are accused of something, these rights are valuable.

"Obviously guilty" is not a legal concept and hasn't been in a long time - even the middle ages had better standards than that.

[Celerity]

13. Because the American system of checks and balances was designed to ensure (as much as possible)

eqial justice under the law (your mileage may vary on who gets equal treatment over the sweep of centuries) and to avoid revolutions, coups d'etat, and kangaroo courts.

The fatal (potentially) flaw is that the founders simply failed to foresee technologically-enabled mass radicalisation tied to one political party, a party that now literally is casting aside objective truth and the rule of law itself.

The intricate system of interlocks and checks and balances, relies, at some bedrock point, on fair play, which is now being eviscerated in a mad rush (after 6 decades or so of grinding, systemic prepping and setting of the table at all levels (political/legal/cultural), from small hamlets up to State and Federal levels and across all branches and levers of power-projection) for christofash domination at totalitarian levels.

[Laffy Kat]

15. It's only difficult to put white, white-collar men in jail. nt

[former9thward]

29. Not really.

Our justice system (and the justice system of every country on earth) regards violent crimes against persons to be the highest priority in terms of sentencing criminals to jail/prison. White collar crimes involving property are a distant second place.

[markpkessinger]

20. Because our founders had the wisdom to understand the danger of having no check . . .

. . . on the prosecutorial power of the state!

Seriously, I had to double check which site I was on when I read this, as this concept of "technicalities" is one I would more typically expect on a right-wing site!

These "technicalities," as you call them, arise from our adversarial system of criminal justice, in which the state has virtually unlimited resources to bring to bear on a prosecution (if it wishes to do so), and a defendant, unless he or she is independently wealthy, will most of the time be represented by an overworked public defender who may have very limited experience and limited resources. And such "technicalities" are often the only check against overzealous, out-of-control police and prosecutors.

Defendants are entitled to as robust a defense as possible, just as prosecutors are free to mount the most robust prosecutions they can (which often include highly exaggerated claims). Both sides are entitled to use modern technology to help them make their respective cases. Regardless of whether the state introduced the GPS data, the defense most assuredly would if it thought that it would help their case.

And yes, long before GPS technology was available, people were tried and convicted of crimes. Need I remind you that a lot of people were also falsely convicted.

The law is neither on the side of the prosecution nor the defense. It is, as it should be, on the side of ensuring fair trials for ALL accused persons, including those you think are "obviously" guilty!

And your comment about lawyers writing laws in order to "build up their billing hours" is not even worth dignifying with a response. I will say, however, that lawyers who really want to make money don't go into criminal law in the first place -- the legal fortunes are made in corporate law!

[tritsofme]

22. Precisely to protect us from folks like yourself

[Effete Snob]

27. +1

There’s another thread where the consensus is that one should not be able to challenge a subpoena.

Fascism finds fertile soil in all kinds of places.

[MineralMan]

24. Obviously guilty, eh?

Well, see, some folks thing Obama was obviously guilty, Hillary Clinton, and Hunter Biden, etc.

That's why we have trials here. They're not perfect, but they keep many people who are falsely accused from going to prison.

Who decides that a person is guilty? You? I don't even know you, so why would you be my choice of judge?

[Effete Snob]

28. .

[DickKessler]

25. Unless there is active and sustained effort against them, the powerful can and will escape justice.

True across time and place.

And yes, such a state of affairs is incompatible with democracy or the rule of law as we understand it.