Forum Moderators: open
Most people (psychopaths excluded) live a life based on some set of moral principles. Religion is not required for these moral principles - just a standard of right and wrong. However, there is a natural tendency to apply a moral construct to the judicial system. Although the judicial system has it roots in morality, there is a good reason it is called a legal system and not a moral system.A criminal proceding is an adversarial process in which the power of the state (including highly trained prosecutors, state-funded crime labs, specialist police officers called detectives, etc.) is brought to bear to prove the guilt of a person. Usually a criminal defendant is represented by a single attorney. Those cases where the playing field is leveled by a rich defendant able not only to hire an attorney, but pay for his/her own scientific as well as other experts is rare. It seems the norm because that is what is covered by the media.
Defendants in U.S. courts have rights afforded by the United States Constitution, their State's constitution, as well as state statute. Succinctly put, the state has power and a defendant has rights. Having rights is a shorthand way of saying that there is a limitation on a prosecutor's power. There are several ways in which "rights" can be enforced. For example, in the U.S. in order for the police to search you or your property, one of three things must exist. The first is a valid search warrant, or in the case of an automobile search, the same probable cause must exist that would support a search warrant. The second is a search incident to a lawful arrest (not all arrests are lawful). Third is a defendant's consent.
Assume that none of the above legal reasons for a search exist, the police violate a person's rights and search anyway, and the search produces property known to be stolen. The person is obviously morally guilty. However, the person's rights against an unlawful search were violated. Since a right without a remedy is no right at all, in order to enforce the person's rights, the court disallows use of the contraband at trial. If the stolen property were the only evidence linking the person with the crime, then the case would be dismissed. The person is legally "not guilty".
If a case cannot be settled prior to trial (most are settled via a negotiated plea), at the end of the case, a judge gives instructions to the jury. Some of these instructions are statements or restatements regarding reasonable doubt. Other charges cover the credibilty and impeachment of the witnesses. Still others explain the elements of the law, each of which must be proved before a finding of guilty can be had. The jury is supposed to follow all instructions as it applies the law to the facts.
Criminal juries do not make moral determinations. It should be no surprise (although this is where the biggest misperception comes in) that they must make legal determinations. If you understand this concept, you should understand why there is no such thing as an innocent verdict, which would be a moral determination. "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" verdicts are legal determinations made by reasonable jurors. Hence, guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - a reasonable juror who has a doubt as to guilt is required by law to return a verdict of "not guilty".
If you can get your brain wrapped around the concept of legal guilt (determined by a jury) versus moral guilt (determined by God or your own moral principles), you might not be so quick to dismiss a jury that made a determination using the evidence presented.
Simply put, if the prosecutor does not present sufficient admissible AND CREDIBLE evidence to cause a reasonable juror to make a legal determination of guilt, a not guilty verdict must follow.
I have expressed in a few paragraphs what has otherwise been explained in volumes. Keep in mind that I'm neither defending nor disparaging the system, just trying to explain it.
Feel free to add your own comments.
Of course, if the legal system was all about Morals, finding some attorney would be nearly impossible. ;)
Police officers and detectives work off the presumption that their quarry is guilty. If the courts were to announce that they arrest lots of innocent people, in fact, until a determination is made either by plea, trial or judge, that everyone that is arrested is innocent, there would be a public outcry. ;)
>>reasonable doubt
Since when are people reasonable? The human mind can definitely play tricks with beyond all doubt, beyond reasonable doubt and beyond any doubt. So we're left with jury instructions that mention "reasonable doubt". Change reasonable to all or any and it would be next to impossible to get a conviction.
The simple fact of the matter is that we're left with the assumption that money can be used to determine a verdict. If MJ had a public defender would the verdict have been the same? OJ? Reasonable doubt can be purchased. ;) We don't really bother with the implications moral and legal guilt. If the defendant is determined to be legally guilty, we assume he or she is morally guilty as well. Unfortunately, because the the mistrust we've acquired about the legal system, we have a prior defendant that is legally "not guilty", but we're left with the nagging feeling that great harm has been done to children and morally, that bothers us.
Justice appears blind, granted, blinded by the glitter of gold. Which is why plea bargains should be avoided, and no immunity granted to co-defendants charged in a crime. Not applicable in MJ's case, I know, but it's all about perceptions. The current perception is that money buys verdicts.
I agree. All cases should proceed to trial.
>>money buys verdicts
Like I said, it certainly helps to level the playing field. I'm not sure what "buying a verdict" means - I know it doesn't mean bribery.
Nope. But it's supposed to be "equal justice under the law", not the best "justice" a defendant can afford. So say the state is prepared to spend 1 million bucks prosecuting the case, should the defendant, say one stuck with a public defender, be allotted 1 million bucks for his defense? Extremes I know. ;)
Are public defenders allocated a percentage of what the prosecution is allotted? Equal percentage? Not really sure how that works. I'm certainly prepared to believe that a wealthy individual can outspend the prosecution though.
Hey, I started out as a public defender. Were my clients stuck with me. In a sense they were since I was assigned cases. However, my reputation was such that when indigents were arrested, they made a point to say that they wanted me.
You should put a smiley after that statement, lawman --seems self-serving.
Nice job on a tough subject. But DG is right, money buys legal talent, and that talent does seem to win out. Celebrity status for the defendant doesn't seem to hurt, either.
Seems that way until you know my reasons. When I feel up to it I'll give you the short answer.
