View Full Version : What's Wrong With America #468...
America isn't perfect, I think we all know it. And while it might be the best thing going it could be a lot better. One of the things that makes it not perfect is this idealized "good old days" we keep trying to get back to.
In many ways there was a "good old days" and in many ways it was better. But it was still a long way from perfect. One of the biggest misconceptions seems to be that "common sense" ruled and you could count on justice to prevail. Sadly our legal system has always been something of a disaster. This is because we encourage prosecutors and defense lawyers to "win" regardless of what actually happened. Evidence that would result in "justice" is regularly suppressed or omitted so that one side or the other can "win" the case.
Perhaps no better example of the travesties of justice that can result is the case of "Mad Dog" Coll. Coll began as an enforcer for Dutch Schultz who engaged in murder and kidnapping of other gangsters for ransom money. Later he had a falling out with Schultz and he stated his own gang.
On July 28, 1931, Coll unsuccessfully attempted to kidnap Joey Rao, a Schultz underling. The resulting shootout left a five-year-old child, Michael Vengalli, dead and several children wounded. After this atrocity, New York City Mayor dubbed Coll "Mad Dog".
Coll went to court to fight charges on the Vengalli killing. Unfortunately the prosecutor relied on a "professional witness" in order to help "win" the case. Coll's defense attorney destroyed the credibility of George Brecht, a man who made a covert living as a witness at trials. In December 1931, Coll was acquitted.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Vincent_Coll_leaving_court_NYWTS.jpg/754px-Vincent_Coll_leaving_court_NYWTS.jpg
Vincent Coll leaving homicide court surrounded by police officers, 1931
So right here we have a prosecutor who relied on fabricated evidence to win a case which resulted in the acquittal of Coll. The parents of the murdered 5 year old child would never see justice.
So what could make this worse? The defense attorney for Coll was none other than Samuel Leibowitz. A man who was willing to acquit a child murderer because it was his job and he was able to do it. What would make things worse than a defense attorney like that willing to accept such a case and work hard to win it?
Well later Leibowitz would actually become a judge in the 1940s and eventually became a member of the New York Supreme Court. Here he was regarded as a famous celebrity, became a well respected individual and was even the subject of a flattering biography by Quentin Reynolds.
Not bad of a scumbag who helped a mafia kidnapper and killer beat the rap for killing a little kid.
I'd like to think such a thing couldn't happen today, but I'm not positive.
What about the garbage prosecutor who used a professional witness?
Does he get a pass?
RancidSumo
11-22-10, 00:42
What about the garbage prosecutor who used a professional witness?
Does he get a pass?
I'm pretty sure he showed how much he disliked the prosecutor here-
So right here we have a prosecutor who relied on fabricated evidence to win a case which resulted in the acquittal of Coll. The parents of the murdered 5 year old child would never see justice.
right to self defense>"justice"
The way I see it, is that the corrupt/broken system is what creates defense attorneys that do their best to protect child murderers. There's a sense of doubt that the justice system is fair to all.
Sometimes good intentions destroy honest people.
The way I see it, is that the corrupt/broken system is what creates defense attorneys that do their best to protect child murderers. There's a sense of doubt that the justice system is fair to all.
Sometimes good intentions destroy honest people.
That is pretty much my take and a main point of the post. We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. Neither lawyer acts in the interest of justice or seeks the truth, in many cases they act contrary to the interests of both truth and justice.
The obvious solution is to make it a crime to knowingly prosecute an innocent man or knowingly acquit a guilty one. In this model both lawyers would actually work together to discover the truth, with one seeking evidence on behalf of accused and one seeking evidence on behalf of the victim and both working towards a solution that would be actual justice.
But as the current legal system is apparently controlled by lawyers, I doubt such reforms would ever be possible.
John_Wayne777
11-22-10, 06:48
The way I see it, is that the corrupt/broken system is what creates defense attorneys that do their best to protect child murderers.
Everybody hates defense lawyers until they actually need one.
The bottom line is that the state has the burden to prove that someone is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The founders were not stupid...they knew that structuring the system in that fashion made it more difficult to put criminals behind bars or on the end of a noose. They also knew that it would make it more difficult to put the innocent behind bars or on the end of a noose as well, and that was the whole point.
In this instance the state fabricated evidence and suborned perjury...and if they're willing to do that a juror has to wonder how much of the rest of the case is reliable. It seems to me that the defense attorney did his job by impeaching the credibility of fabricated evidence and that the jury, presented with clear evidence of the state making stuff up, rightly decided that the credibility of the state's entire case was suspect and not beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is a greater offense to the concept of justice...not convicting this guy of murder, or allowing the state to fabricate evidence as a basis for imprisoning/executing someone that the state decides is guilty of a crime?
The obvious solution is to make it a crime to knowingly prosecute an innocent man or knowingly acquit a guilty one.
Guilt and innocence are determined by trials. I fail to see how you are going to get a better overall outcome by making the lawyers acting in the trials subject to a criminal penalty based on the juror's verdict. Should the people who prosecuted OJ Simpson be locked up in prison because they prosecuted an "innocent" man? Should the attorney who represented that guy in NYC who was hammered for shooting an intruder with an unregistered pistol be locked up for defending a "guilty" man?
It's absurd.
Make it mandatory to tell juries that they are absolutely not required to convict people on statutes that they feel are unconstitutional or go against their own conscience.
Juries should be comprised of 12 people selected out of the phone book at random. The Sheriff's office can go pick them all up on the day of the trail.
pilotguyo540
11-22-10, 08:23
I have to agree with John_Wayne777 on this. The founders set this system up this way so the government could not go on a witch hunt to eliminate political opposition. Poorly worded and please forgive me if it came out not 100%. Still on my first cup 'o joe.
If I was wrongfully accused the last thing I want is my attorney working "with" the guy trying to execute me.
It is easy to get frustrated with the legal system when a scumbag gets set free. It beats the alternative. Every dictatorship has a very efficient court system. I don't really want that.
Everybody hates defense lawyers until they actually need one.
Not true. I only hate the ones who knowingly help acquit the guilty. I have no problems with defense lawyers who defend innocent people are simply seek a fair sentence for those clients who are guilty.
Guilt and innocence are determined by trials. I fail to see how you are going to get a better overall outcome by making the lawyers acting in the trials subject to a criminal penalty based on the juror's verdict. Should the people who prosecuted OJ Simpson be locked up in prison because they prosecuted an "innocent" man? Should the attorney who represented that guy in NYC who was hammered for shooting an intruder with an unregistered pistol be locked up for defending a "guilty" man?
It's absurd.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying lawyers should be responsible for jury decisions. I'm saying lawyers should be accountable for "their" actions.
For example how close did Nifong come to turning a bunch of innocent college kids into rapists because he willfully ignored evidence? Had somebody else not brought it to light he would have knowingly destroyed the lives of innocent people.
And how many defense attorneys knowingly ignore evidence of their clients guilt but still get them acquitted ?
What I'm saying in a true system of justice both attorneys would be seeking the actual truth and then the jury and judge can decide the most just verdict.
Make it mandatory to tell juries that they are absolutely not required to convict people on statutes that they feel are unconstitutional or go against their own conscience.
Juries should be comprised of 12 people selected out of the phone book at random. The Sheriff's office can go pick them all up on the day of the trail.
And right there is where I've always been released from jury duty. When I refuse to swear to apply the laws as they are written, and more importantly when I explain the concept of jury nullification as a "right of the juror" I am on my way to lunch within minutes.
If I was wrongfully accused the last thing I want is my attorney working "with" the guy trying to execute me.
But there's a flip.
What if the guy who is "trying to execute you" is not only required to not start with such a basic mandate and is in fact required to work with your attorney to make damn sure there isn't any evidence to prove you are innocent. What if the prosecuting attorney is made responsible for knowingly convicting an innocent person?
And right there is where I've always been released from jury duty. When I refuse to swear to apply the laws as they are written, and more importantly when I explain the concept of jury nullification as a "right of the juror" I am on my way to lunch within minutes.
Yep, quickest way out the door.
"Do you hold certain truths to be self evident? ... ok, you're excused."
And right there is where I've always been released from jury duty. When I refuse to swear to apply the laws as they are written, and more importantly when I explain the concept of jury nullification as a "right of the juror" I am on my way to lunch within minutes.
agreed, jury nullification is the last bastion of defense for the common man but judges and lawyers both would prefer it not be known or excercised.
pilotguyo540
11-22-10, 18:07
But there's a flip.
What if the guy who is "trying to execute you" is not only required to not start with such a basic mandate and is in fact required to work with your attorney to make damn sure there isn't any evidence to prove you are innocent. What if the prosecuting attorney is made responsible for knowingly convicting an innocent person?
That would have to be one cold calculating dude. I don't think human nature allows for that person often enough for your system to work. On the surface, to me at least, there is not enough protection for the persecuted. The founding fathers made reasonable doubt good enough to walk for a good reason. I am sure you may have something figured out that I may not be picking up on. I like your politics mostly. Sell me on this one. I still want you to run for POTUS in 2012.
Thanks for the jury nullification info. I had no idea!
That would have to be one cold calculating dude. I don't think human nature allows for that person often enough for your system to work. On the surface, to me at least, there is not enough protection for the persecuted. The founding fathers made reasonable doubt good enough to walk for a good reason. I am sure you may have something figured out that I may not be picking up on. I like your politics mostly. Sell me on this one. I still want you to run for POTUS in 2012.
Thanks for the jury nullification info. I had no idea!
Perhaps I'm operating in my mythical "perfect world" again, but even with the existing system it is not run how the founders intended. I doubt very much they planned on guys like Nifong who would deliberately ignore evidence in order to attempt to prosecute a Lacrosse team simply because it was popular to do do. I also doubt they really intended to have guys like Leibowitz help scum like Coll, to say nothing of then going on to become a prominent judge. So the current system is already being manipulated in ways unintended and certainly not in the interest of justice.
I guess what I'm trying to put in place is a consequence for either attorney if they deliberately ignore or suppress evidence and I'm replacing the current motive of "win regardless of the truth" with a new motive of "find the truth and serve justice." And I'm sure even if put in place, it will be manipulated some how. Lawyers always seem to find a way to do the exact opposite of what we intend when they want to.
I agree with many that our current system is far superior to most found elsewhere in the world, all I'm doing is recognizing it isn't perfect and can be better. I think the real problem is if you replace the motive "to win" with "to find the truth" there really isn't any money in that. A guilty client isn't gonna pay thousands of dollars to be caught by his own guy.
Bolt_Overide
11-23-10, 02:23
Whats wrong with america?
In short, a lot.....
pilotguyo540
11-23-10, 09:37
Whats wrong with america?
In short, a lot.....
Well that was helpful. :rolleyes:
Bolt_Overide
11-23-10, 21:14
It wasnt meant to be helpful in the sense of pointing at one particular thing. It was meant to be helpful in the sense of making you chuckle. Its a bastardised quote from a movie.
Now, lighten up francis.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.