Thread: Myths Of The Criminal Justice System: Part 1

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This protection against "double jeopardy" is intended to prevent the government from retrying the same defendant over and over until prosecutors can get a conviction.

Myths Of The Criminal Justice System: Part 1

The state has a monopoly on force and will use it against you even if you have done nothing wrong. The excuse "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" is nothing but apologist crap for those who get off when the government's cadre of thugs, thieves and murders harass innocent people.

Originally Posted by Cold Highway

Myths Of The Criminal Justice System: Part 1

The state has a monopoly on force and will use it against you even if you have done nothing wrong. The excuse "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" is nothing but apologist crap for those who get off when the government's cadre of thugs, thieves and murders harass innocent people.

The use of language in this article, and obvious misinformation makes this piece a biased pile of garbage.

Why does it post these "myths", then say "Well, this myth is true"? What a dumb article.

Originally Posted by Gargantuan

Why does it post these "myths", then say "Well, this myth is true"? What a dumb article.

That would have been a very perceptive remark if only the article said what you claimed it said.

Originally Posted by sangha

That would have been a very perceptive remark if only the article said what you claimed it said.

This particular "myth" is mostly true.

Maybe you should be more perceptive.

Originally Posted by Gargantuan

Maybe you should be more perceptive.

Maybe you should remember how you misquoted and pretended you didn't edit out the word "mostly"

Originally Posted by Gargantuan

Why does it post these "myths", then say "Well, this myth is true"? What a dumb article.

As even you now admit, the article doesn't say "Well, this myth is true"...It said "this myth is MOSTLY true" (emphasis mine)

What did I edit now?

This article demonstrates a real lack of understanding of how law actually works.

1. The double jeopardy exceptions are not unreasonable, and what else would you do with a hung jury? You have to have another trial, since you don't have an answer. Besides, a trial hasn't occurred until it has finished, with a verdict. Otherwise it's only part of one. You can only be put through one complete trial. Conspiracy is a very different crime than, well... whatever it is you're accused of conspiring to do. Especially if you haven't done the thing yet. If you have, then the conspiracy charge gets wrapped up in the greater crime and has no effect on sentencing. However, it can be used to help convict others, who conspired towards the crime, but did not contribute to the act itself. Lastly, the state and federal offenses means they are DIFFERENT CRIMES. Even if they arise from the same action, they would be different crimes, in different courts. Or the article is completely missing the point and is basing this conclusion on civil courts, in which case double jeopardy doesn't apply.

2. The seizure of property in drug cases is, in fact, a gross abuse of power. This is one of two things the article correctly addresses. Otherwise, judges have all sorts of prerogative in sentencing. But those decisions can be appealed if there's something really wrong with them. Judges are even allowed to set aside a jury's verdict if it's completely unreasonable. Again, appealable. Learn the law before you judge it.

3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Learn the law. But yeah, it is pretty complicated, and there are a whole lot of laws we break without even knowing. But how often do you think someone is actually prosecuted for those laws? I'll give you a hint, it's not very often. As for the lack of knowledge by police about the laws they uphold... Yeah, that's messed up. It's happened to me.

The overall message of this article is flawed, and most of its points are false.

Originally Posted by Caine

The use of language in this article, and obvious misinformation makes this piece a biased pile of garbage.

some stuff was somewhat correct some was hype some was BS

Originally Posted by TurtleDude

some stuff was somewhat correct some was hype some was BS

Thats a pretty accurate summary