View Poll Results: Swift Justice?

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 18.18%
  • No

    18 81.82%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 44

Thread: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

  1. #31
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Breivik should not face capital punishment. There is no compelling interest in killing him as opposed to life in prison. The legal system isn't around to satisfy emotional revenge, it is protect society. Most mass shooters end up killing themselves so there isn't even any deterrence in preventing similar crimes.

  2. #32
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,652
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    I haven't read the thread, but have a couple of thoughts on the OP. The USA already has the right to a speedy trial, although that right is usually waived by the defense to allow longer to prepare. However, Anders Behring Breivik will not spend the rest of his life in prison. In Norway, the most he can be sentenced to is 21 years. Given that paltry sentence for such a heinous crime, I'm not going to shed tears if he spends a few extra years preparing for trial.

    Loughner is a different situation. He is certifiably insane, unable to understand the charges against him, unable to aid in his own defense, and will most likely never be tried for his crimes. He will also most likely never be released from the psychiatric institution.

    I'm not usually in favor of the death penalty, but when talking about mass murder with the bodies at the perpetrator's feet, I'd be willing to put a bullet in the guy's brain myself.

    Most trials are not so cut-and-dried. Too many innocents are being convicted based upon thin circumstantial evidence, only to be proven innocent after years and even decades in jail. I'm certainly not willing to take every convicted murderer out behind the courthouse and put them down immediately. Justice isn't always just, but it's the best system we currently have. It would be even better if it weren't riddled with so damned much behind-the-scenes corruption. Just sayin'.

  3. #33
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    I voted the obvious answer of yes BUT I'm not sure how the law should be written. Of course I would not want to give up all rights but the worthless loop holes that people use to appeal etc etc need to be removed of blocked in some cases.

    There are people that have confessed and there's video/DNA evidence they did it and they still wait years to get executed. What a wast.
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  4. #34
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people including children on the 22nd of July 2011.

    He will be tried through a painfully slow justice system and ultimately will be convicted and spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.

    Now normally I'm against the death penalty. But it just seems to me that acts of this nature, extraordinary nature I might add, require extraordinary responses. Its obvious he did it, I don't need a jury or a judge to tell me otherwise.

    And its painfully obvious given the barbarity of his crimes, and his depraved reasoning that he has simply forfieted his right to live.

    In this case, I believe a summary execution is entirely justified. No need for torture, no fuss, just taken behind the shed and put down.

    But he's only one example.

    I believe there should be a clause in the justice system for events like this, and for example Loughner, for acts such as this, where its painfully obvious that they're guilty and willfully carried out the actions of their own free will, that they should be summarily executed.

    Of course this is a pipe dream, very extreme on my part and I'll be first one to admit it goes against alot of what I believe and it goes against the very fabric that the law is. The law has to apply equally, and at the end of the day, is there truly a moral difference between someone who stabs a woman to death for $130 or shoots a person in cold blood because they believe they're an idealogical enemy...

    Not really.

    But mass murderers, especially ones like Loughner, and Breivik, don't just wake up one day and decide to committ these acts, they take time, careful consideration, planning and execution, and lets go one step further. For world leaders that committ crimes against their own people. Such as genocide and other maliticous acts. Lets do it to them as well. Milosovec didn't deserve the ICC, he deserved a shot to the back of the head after bring raped with a hot iron for all the attrocities he caused. He carefully planned and executed a campaign of national ethnic cleansing and mass rape that was years in the making and lasted 3 years. The Nazi leaders that were hung deserved their fate for the brutal and systematic slaughter they unleashed...

    But again I absolutely and openly admit that its all in the end emotionalism. This whole post is. But when I see Breivik and Loughner being coddled, relatively speaking, given the so much rights and priveledges when its obvious and doesn't even require a judge, jury of investigation that the only priveledge these men gave to anyone was a bullet or a bomb... its enough to boil your blood.
    I haven't read the rest of this thread, but I would be against such a clause.

    It's important to give prosecutors and the state the time they need to investigate spree crimes such as this. A "swift justice" law may impede the investigation to bring spree killers to justice and to give them a sentence they deserve. This is especially true when it comes to spree killers who may be mentally ill, especially since in the U.S. our mental health system is absolutely atrocious.

    So by implementing such a clause it may hurt the state, and therefore the people, more than it would help.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,774

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Before I clicked on this thread, when I read the title, I was expecting something along the lines of how long it can take to move through the process of arrest to verdict.

    True justice is blind. Always has been, always will be. Even the worst of terrorists, pedophiles, and mass murderers are entitled to legal rights in the system that tries them. Even if everybody else knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did it, they must be allowed the opportunity of a reasonable defense.

    Recognize that if we reduce the arrest-to-verdict time, it's going to require more manpower, which means increased costs. Two courtrooms that can handle the exact same function as one but do so faster, increases costs. But of course, that ignores the benefit to society in the form of having the innocent released faster and the guilty sentenced faster. It is for that reason that I do favor reforms to expedite the process in a manner that does not deny the accused their legal rights. After all, the right to a speedy trial is explicitly stated in the Constitution as one of those rights.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  6. #36
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251 View Post
    Before I clicked on this thread, when I read the title, I was expecting something along the lines of how long it can take to move through the process of arrest to verdict.

    True justice is blind. Always has been, always will be. Even the worst of terrorists, pedophiles, and mass murderers are entitled to legal rights in the system that tries them. Even if everybody else knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did it, they must be allowed the opportunity of a reasonable defense.

    Recognize that if we reduce the arrest-to-verdict time, it's going to require more manpower, which means increased costs. Two courtrooms that can handle the exact same function as one but do so faster, increases costs. But of course, that ignores the benefit to society in the form of having the innocent released faster and the guilty sentenced faster. It is for that reason that I do favor reforms to expedite the process in a manner that does not deny the accused their legal rights. After all, the right to a speedy trial is explicitly stated in the Constitution as one of those rights.
    Excellent points. I'm in law school at the moment and I have been stunned to find out how insanely underfunded the courts are. It's totally absurd. It is not unusual for parties to have to wait several months just for a 5 minute appearance in front of a judge for some minor procedural thing they need to proceed. Often times the plaintiff dies before the case is resolved... Or, more commonly, whatever they needed from the court is no longer relevant before the case is resolved. We are so short on courts that if more than 1% of the cases actually go to trial the system would break. So, judges are forced to penalize parties so harshly for bringing cases to trial that nobody ever does. For example, in a criminal case, if you don't accept the DA's plea bargain offer and go to trial you are almost certain to get a sentence 3 or more times harsher than what the DA offered you. That is the judge punishing you for taking up the ultra-precious resource of courtroom time. It isn't that the judges are bad people, it is that if they didn't do that they would immediately become completely overwhelmed. In my view that isn't how it is supposed to work at all. People have a right to be heard and we need to provide the funding necessary to give them that opportunity. And it isn't that expensive. In terms of our overall government budgets it is only a miniscule percentage that we spend on courts.
    Last edited by teamosil; 09-04-11 at 09:18 PM.

  7. #37
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,652
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Excellent points. I'm in law school at the moment and I have been stunned to find out how insanely underfunded the courts are. It's totally absurd. It is not unusual for parties to have to wait several months just for a 5 minute appearance in front of a judge for some minor procedural thing they need to proceed. Often times the plaintiff dies before the case is resolved... Or, more commonly, whatever they needed from the court is no longer relevant before the case is resolved. We are so short on courts that if more than 1% of the cases actually go to trial the system would break. So, judges are forced to penalize parties so harshly for bringing cases to trial that nobody ever does. For example, in a criminal case, if you don't accept the DA's plea bargain offer and go to trial you are almost certain to get a sentence 3 or more times harsher than what the DA offered you. That is the judge punishing you for taking up the ultra-precious resource of courtroom time. It isn't that the judges are bad people, it is that if they didn't do that they would immediately become completely overwhelmed. In my view that isn't how it is supposed to work at all. People have a right to be heard and we need to provide the funding necessary to give them that opportunity. And it isn't that expensive. In terms of our overall government budgets it is only a miniscule percentage that we spend on courts.

    You can thank the War On Drugs for much of that. Seriously. Drug-related charges swallow up a huge percentage of law enforcement, justice system, and incarceration costs. They are the major reason that courts are so overtaxed and prisons overpopulation. Unfortunately, the War On Drugs is also known as the Law Enforcement Employment Protection Act, so I doubt anything will change.

  8. #38
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    You can thank the War On Drugs for much of that. Seriously. Drug-related charges swallow up a huge percentage of law enforcement, justice system, and incarceration costs. They are the major reason that courts are so overtaxed and prisons overpopulation. Unfortunately, the War On Drugs is also known as the Law Enforcement Employment Protection Act, so I doubt anything will change.
    There's a lot of legislation tied up with the Drug War, too. Confiscated property from drug related arrests (like any car even vaguely related to a drug deal, and property where drugs were made or stored) makes up a large portion of funding for police departments. There's a lot to be fixed with all the problems with the Drug War, its affects on police, and how it's torn our fourth amendment rights to shreds.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #39
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,652
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    There's a lot of legislation tied up with the Drug War, too. Confiscated property from drug related arrests (like any car even vaguely related to a drug deal, and property where drugs were made or stored) makes up a large portion of funding for police departments. There's a lot to be fixed with all the problems with the Drug War, its affects on police, and how it's torn our fourth amendment rights to shreds.
    Indeed. I worked for a SoCal city when the drug confiscation laws were introduced, and our police department was ecstatic! They totally changed departmental focus from patrolling neighborhoods to setting up drug stings, because they knew the proceeds of confiscated property would go directly into police coffers... and they didn't have to account for a dime of it. I was so damned certain that something so clearly unconstitutional would be overturned within months. Ha! It's now been 20 years. Shows what I know about how the real world works. Not only was it not overturned, but the major focus of the nation's police efforts have been drug-related... and not for altruistic good-of-the-community reasons. It's strictly for the cash they can pile up in departmental coffers. Utterly disgusting.

  10. #40
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    Indeed. I worked for a SoCal city when the drug confiscation laws were introduced, and our police department was ecstatic! They totally changed departmental focus from patrolling neighborhoods to setting up drug stings, because they knew the proceeds of confiscated property would go directly into police coffers... and they didn't have to account for a dime of it. I was so damned certain that something so clearly unconstitutional would be overturned within months. Ha! It's now been 20 years. Shows what I know about how the real world works. Not only was it not overturned, but the major focus of the nation's police efforts have been drug-related... and not for altruistic good-of-the-community reasons. It's strictly for the cash they can pile up in departmental coffers. Utterly disgusting.
    Maybe if we stopped making police rely on drug busts to pay their salaries, they could go back to actually trying to protect us from violent criminals. All of those infringements of our rights would diminish. We could see about overturning a lot of Supreme Court cases that supported the Drug War. I think people's support for police would be renewed, as well. Once their job doesn't center around constantly keeping tabs on us and screwing us over so much...
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •