Do Fair Trials Exist?

I know right away that I will appear foolish to ask the following question. Yet, a fool will always ask foolish things that appear not to make sense to those whom profess their wisdom.

Do Criminal Court Judges truly warrant the Civil Rights of Defendants to receive fair trials?

First, the term fair, in the context of a contest, means that the rules are officiated fairly.

Secondly, the term officiate means that the officials (i.e. referees, umpires or judges etc.) remain neutral or don’t interfere with the outcome of the contest.

1) If Party A has the Civil Rights to confront Party B with criminal complaints;
2) Then Party B has the same Civil Rights to confront Party A with criminal complaints.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that there are fair trials, but the percentage of them is not as high as i would like it to be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Until they've sat on a jury most people have no idea of the inadequacy of the process.


---- RH.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fair trials dont exist, because humans got no right to have trials in the first place, humans arent gods to decide what fate is of other humans.

 

If you are asking about the US I would have to say that since juries are not usually fully informed about the right to decide the way they want (jury nullification) defendants do not always get a fair trial.

 

We seem to have a lot of people claiming that our justice system is very bad.

It certainly has a lot of flaws, primarily due to prosecutors and police who are eager to get convictions because it looks good on their records. In my area there have been some outrageous examples of this.

It would be nice to have some suggestions on how to fix the system.

The jury system is a basically sound. idea, when compared to other possible systems.

One idea is to have severe penalties for prosecutors or police who can be proven to have been over zealous. Civil suits for monetary damages are usually paid ftom genral funds, not from the pockets of prosecutors or police. Perhaps there should be jail sentences in these situations, with civil suit criteria for the level of proof required.

Another thought is to pass legislation making prosecutors & police personnel ineligible for public offices like mayor, governor, or judge.

Any other thoughts?

 

I think a case can definitely be made that such prosecutors and police have violated the civil rights of these individuals. That could be prosecuted under federal law.

 

Yes, it is very bad, of late.

No, I do not know of a better system. I can certainly think of many, many historical examples of much worse systems.

Part of our problem, as I see it, stems from our basic philosophy that
** "We Never Convict/Punish An Innocent"

Because of this, we often let the guilty go free, and most folk are Okay with this, so long as no innocents are punished.

...

Fast-forwards to today, with the adversorial system we currently use. The methods by which we determine guilt or innocence has not kept up, much, with the technology we have available.

Our basic system is still anchored in the 19th century's logic, but more and more we are using 21st century techniques.

Many, of which are used to manipulate the system, instead of the methodology.

For example, in really high $$ criminal trials of late, there is being employed a Jury Spin Doctor. That is, using analysis methods from the advertising industry, the jury is analyzed, and subtle methods are being used to sway the results. There is an example of this in Reader's Digest, April 2006, in the column "Thats Outrageous!"

Is this really Justice, as was intended by the Constitutional Framers? Hardly. But, currently, it's still legal.

...

Perhaps, we should re-vamp the basic fundamental premise of our current system, from one of antagonistic (defence vs prosecution) to one of "find the truth" wherein all are only interesting in finding out "what really happened?"

...

I don't think instigating more punishments is the answer, either. Moreover, I believe it will get worse before Anything Changes ...

 

How else then?

The scientific method of theory and experiment amounts to much the same.

---- RH

 

I've been thinking about this whole issue.

For one thing, it seems to me that a fair place to start might be by creating professional juries. We've got professional judges and attorneys (on both sides - prosecution and defense) and these people are pretty well trained in the law, rules of evidence, etc. But the jurors are just ordinary people with no training at all in those areas.

People become professional "everything else", why not jurors? That would be their full-time job and the would serve inside a designated geographical area. They would need to receive formal training, much along the lines of a paralegal.

With an assigned 'team'/pool of people like that, they would get to know many of the specific lawyers from experience and become wise to their particular courtroom style, theatrics, etc. and less likely to be swayed simply because of some lawyer's performance. They would learn to see through shenanigans and focus more on the actual evidence - or lack of it - that's being presented rather than swayed by eloquent speeches, etc. After all, the whole basis for any trial is supposed to be evidence only, not emotions.

Yes, I realize a lot of changes would HAVE to be made - the definition of "peers" would have to be rewritten since these people would no longer be peers in the normal usage of the word.

I believe it would go a LONG way toward providing equal justice as opposed to what happens to the guy with a public defender compared to the defendant with deep pockets that hires a whole team of high-profile attorneys.

What do you think?

 

I don't know what happens in the USA or elsewhere but the greatest detriment to the jury system the UK is that the professional classes, the more intelligent sector of society get to be excluded from jury service on the basis that they've more important things to do, so what is left to do the job is .....I am lost for polite words.

Serving as the foreman of a jury (elected by default because none of the other 11 were willing) this came home to me big time, sat there wondering how many of them might themselves have been involved in dubious conduct similar to that on trial.

It was all so sickening that after the first trial (the service was supposed to extend further, for a couple of weeks) I decided to class myself amongst the more intelligent; contriving an excuse to walk away I managed to do so;
the Court Officer was easy game.

I don't think that professional juries are a good idea; after a while there'd be too much contempt for the system bred of a familiarity with it. That's the major benefit of juries, the broader common sense perspective.

Rather then to see intelligent people conscripted on a regular basis, perhaps for two weeks every year.

---- RH.

 

I have considered that instead of the current lottery type system that is used to select the jury pool that it might be better to have a sign-up pool. Possibily making sign-up mandatory to get government benefits like unemployment or welfare or even social security. I think this might produce a more diverse pool which would not mind being there.

 

'Fair trial' = one that goes your way.
'Unfair trial' = where you lose the $200. and go to jail.

 

I am an attorney and have worked a few trials. If the judge allows, it is common practice to ask the jurors just what they thought. I would have to say that most that I have talked to get the complete opposite idea. Most feel that the justice system works much better than they thought going in.

"Professional jurors" are a horrible idea. And we don't really have professional judges either (except for the Supreme Court who receive life appointment), all other judges are by election or limited appointment--in the US. Paid jurors are bad for basically the same reason that paid witnesses are bad. Money persuades. Currently the system allows for jurors to be paid, but it is below minimum wage, not adequate compensation. The difference in paid professional jurors is the amount of money and what source the money comes from. There are other reasons not to have a professional jury, but I'll let you pay for law school if you want to find out.

For the most part it is a sad fact that the client with the most money (the deepest pockets) typically wins. But I'm not sure that that makes it unfair. Economic evolution seems to force this, not the law--the rich get richer and the poor get poorer/it takes money to make money. It takes a lot of money to do all of the "investigative work" involved in a trial, that is one reason why 90%+ of all civil trials are settled outside of the courtroom. As an attorney, there is only so much work that I can do without being paid for the service (I would eventually run out of money myself).

So, it just works out that the client with the most money discovers the most and has the most time and resources to discover. That is not because of the legal system, that is beause of economics. The only other solution would be for only the government to pay all attorneys, but there are a host of problems that would carry with it.

Max

 

The best advise is to do whatever you need to do to stay out of the clutches of the 'system'; even going so far as to 'obey their laws'!
Otherwise, you will never be the same. Like contracting a virus..

Practice smiling and saying, "How may I help you, officer?"
Knowing hypnosis helps also.

 

To have a "fair" trial, you have to have a "fair" justice system. To have a "fair" justice system, you have to know what "fair" is. Is it "fair" that a defendant's lawyer who knows they are guilty legally has to defend them? Is it "fair" that people who ruin lives forever are not necessarily punished forever? It seems to me we need more than anything a definition of fair and then everything else will fall into place.

 

"Fair" = what goes MY way.
"Unfair" = what does NOT go My way.
This seems to be the general definition.

'Fair' is winning by the 'rules' (to the winner).
'Unfair' is winning by your own 'rules' ('unfair' to the loser, that is..)!

 

That definition will not really work for the masses will it? Try again, and this time, maybe you can actually contribute to the greater benefit of mankind (but that is probably impossible based on the way we live).

 

I'm assuming that you are speaking to me?

Work? Actually, I think that this is exactly how the vast masses would define 'fair' (other than the 'county fair' variety) if they could be honest with themselves for a moment.

Let me get this straight;
You were seeking a definition of a word already extant.
I gave a common honest definition.
You don't 'like' my definition and want me to.. what?.. be 'creative' and find some pipe-dream through-the-looking-glass idealistic definition for a 'concept' (as subjective as it can get) that, "can actually contribute to the greater benefit of mankind". Going along with your implied assumption that there is actually anything at all which "can actually contribute to the greater benefit of mankind". (All 'mankind' without exception will have to agree with your verdicts?) *__-
Is that it?
Is that all you wanted?
Do you hold all those who offer their opinions in answer to your questions to the same standard? Can you point me to one example of someone "actually contributing to the greater benefit of mankind" in answering your question?
Perhaps my point is made.

And whats with this "way we live" crappola??
What could you possibly know of the way I live?
And by what authority do you claim that the "way I live" makes it 'impossible' for me to "contribute to the greater benefit of mankind" (assuming, also, that I had the least inclination or ability to 'contribute' squat! to the greater benefit of anyone..)?

 

Can we say that the justice system was "fair" when half the inmates on Illinois death row were proven innocent when DNA evidence was considered?
Hopefully this average does not translate to the entire prison population; then it could explain a high crime rate. If half the people you put in jail are innocent that means that the guilty are still at large doing what they do best.