• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should President Trump suspend Constitutional rights in criminal cases?

Should President Trump suspend Constitutional rights in criminal cases?

  • Total voters
    7
Josie

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,629
Reaction score
32,177
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The 6th amendment provides the accused the right to a speedy and public trial. With the pandemic happening, it's really backlogging the court system since, obviously, they don't want to endanger anyone's health by having a courtroom full of people. So -- how will they get these accused people a speedy trial? Should President Trump suspend that Constitutional right to a speedy trial? If yes, please explain why and how this would be good for the country. If no, please explain what you think should be done instead.
 
My opinion --- absolutely no constitutional rights should be suspended. But they can't do remote criminal trials because how can you make sure the jury isn't getting information elsewhere? It's a conundrum that's unprecedented, to say the least. I haven't heard a good solution.
 
Josie said:
My opinion --- absolutely no constitutional rights should be suspended. But they can't do remote criminal trials because how can you make sure the jury isn't getting information elsewhere? It's a conundrum that's unprecedented, to say the least. I haven't heard a good solution.
Click to expand...

Most trials are state and local. Not for the president to decide how mayors or governors handle this problem.
 
Josie said:
The 6th amendment provides the accused the right to a speedy and public trial. With the pandemic happening, it's really backlogging the court system since, obviously, they don't want to endanger anyone's health by having a courtroom full of people. So -- how will they get these accused people a speedy trial? Should President Trump suspend that Constitutional right to a speedy trial? If yes, please explain why and how this would be good for the country. If no, please explain what you think should be done instead.
Click to expand...

No.

While there are some inherent dangers in keeping a population in close confines, as in a jail or prison situation, it is also easier to control the vectors because of the pre-exiting capabilities to segregate, isolate, test, and treat already in place.

There are also options using video links to carry on the case if time is pressing.

IMO there should be no "get out of jail free" card for felony level cases simply because of a situation we are faced with today.

The only exceptions could be delaying minor infractions and low level misdemeanor cases, extending release on their own recognizance with a promise to return when notified.
 
washunut said:
Most trials are state and local. Not for the president to decide how mayors or governors handle this problem.
Click to expand...

But what's the solution?
 
Captain Adverse said:
No.

While there are some inherent dangers in keeping a population in close confines, as in a jail or prison situation, it is also easier to control the vectors because of the pre-exiting capabilities to segregate, isolate, test, and treat already in place.

There are also options using video links to carry on the case if time is pressing.

IMO there should be no "get out of jail free" card simply because of a situation we are faced with today.
Click to expand...

How would video work in a jury trial, though?
 
Josie said:
But what's the solution?
Click to expand...

Don't know if we need one right now. How long will this lock down last? What is the definition of a speedy trial? Seems like it takes weeks or months or longer for someone to go to trial.

All that being said, for non-violent crimes I would suggest more non-bond releases. People should not be held in a sort of debtors prison just because they can not afford bail.
 
Josie said:
How would video work in a jury trial, though?
Click to expand...

Well, a defendant always has the option of seeking a Judge trial.

If not, as many might choose to wait for a trial by jury, then they should remain incarcerated until such time as circumstances allow for one.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No.

While there are some inherent dangers in keeping a population in close confines, as in a jail or prison situation, it is also easier to control the vectors because of the pre-exiting capabilities to segregate, isolate, test, and treat already in place.

There are also options using video links to carry on the case if time is pressing.

IMO there should be no "get out of jail free" card for felony level cases simply because of a situation we are faced with today.

The only exceptions could be delaying minor infractions and low level misdemeanor cases, extending release on their own recognizance with a promise to return when notified.
Click to expand...

So its ok to hard quarantine the presumed innocent indefinitely in close quarters but anathema to expect the "innocent" to accept a quarantine.

How conservative of you, applying the constitution all selectively like.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, a defendant always has the option of seeking a Judge trial.

If not, as many might choose to wait for a trial by jury, then they should remain incarcerated until such time as circumstances allow for one.
Click to expand...

"Better that a thousand innocent men die of coronavirus than one guilty one be set free."

Charming.
 
washunut said:
Don't know if we need one right now. How long will this lock down last? What is the definition of a speedy trial? Seems like it takes weeks or months or longer for someone to go to trial.

All that being said, for non-violent crimes I would suggest more non-bond releases. People should not be held in a sort of debtors prison just because they can not afford bail.
Click to expand...

A person might already have been in custody for weeks already, though, waiting for their trial. Should they have to stay in jail even longer (without having access to their lawyer because of the visitation restrictions) until this all blows over? I don't think that's right either.
 
Invoke martial law. Governors can do this. Presidents can too although none have ever done it. A 100 years ago, governors used to do it all the time. I think they did it in Hawaii after Pearl Harbor too.

You can keep people in jail forever under martial law.

Martial law is for emergencies and this, by anyone's standard, is an emergency.
 
washunut said:
Don't know if we need one right now. How long will this lock down last? What is the definition of a speedy trial? Seems like it takes weeks or months or longer for someone to go to trial.

All that being said, for non-violent crimes I would suggest more non-bond releases. People should not be held in a sort of debtors prison just because they can not afford bail.
Click to expand...

There you go!

Not too hard, not too soft.

Great answer.
 
Josie said:
The 6th amendment provides the accused the right to a speedy and public trial. With the pandemic happening, it's really backlogging the court system since, obviously, they don't want to endanger anyone's health by having a courtroom full of people. So -- how will they get these accused people a speedy trial? Should President Trump suspend that Constitutional right to a speedy trial? If yes, please explain why and how this would be good for the country. If no, please explain what you think should be done instead.
Click to expand...

I've never thought about this. I honestly don't know.
 
Yep, but crisis (emergency?) situations allow the government (by executive fiat alone?) to ignore those pesky individual constitutional rights by law. So long as such laws are not declared unconstitutional then they will continue to be (ab?)used.

Trial delays are certainly no worse a suspension of individual constitutional rights than civil asset forfeiture or "red flag" laws which allow imposing sentences without need of any criminal charges, much less, a criminal trial or criminal conviction. They also require no such overall crisis (emergency?) situation to be declared by a chief executive - they apply whenever, wherever and to whoever the unelected government officials (LEOs?) decide that they "should" apply.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, a defendant always has the option of seeking a Judge trial.

If not, as many might choose to wait for a trial by jury, then they should remain incarcerated until such time as circumstances allow for one.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. They have the right to a speedy trial and shouldn't be imprisoned for who knows how long until things settle down. They're innocent until proven guilty.
 
What if...? said:
So its ok to hard quarantine the presumed innocent indefinitely in close quarters but anathema to expect the "innocent" to accept a quarantine.

How conservative of you, applying the constitution all selectively like.
Click to expand...

LOL

The criminal justice system is "all selectively like," as in it applies to people who have been accused of a crime and are in the process of "seeking justice" per the system.

Did you have any problem "quarantining" them when the "quarantine" was done due to concerns that they may have harmed others, and may continue to do so if not placed in the criminal justice system's "quarantine?"

Innocent people have been "quarantined" in the criminal justice system for as long as one has existed. Eventually they can be proven innocent.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, there are the added advantages listed which can deal with an outbreak in such a system.

As I also pointed out, low-level offenders can be released on no, or low bail.

Josie said:
I don't agree with that. They have the right to a speedy trial and shouldn't be imprisoned for who knows how long until things settle down. They're innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, see above.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
LOL

The criminal justice system is "all selectively like," as in it applies to people who have been accused of a crime and are in the process of "seeking justice" per the system.

Did you have any problem "quarantining" them when the "quarantine" was done due to concerns that they may have harmed others, and may continue to do so if not placed in the criminal justice system's "quarantine?"

Innocent people have been "quarantined" in the criminal justice system for as long as one has existed. Eventually they can be proven innocent.

Meanwhile, as I pointed out, there are the added advantages listed which can deal with an outbreak in such a system.

As I also pointed out, low-level offenders can be released on no, or low bail.

With all due respect, see above.
Click to expand...

How long is too long for an accused person to be in prison awaiting a jury trial?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, a defendant always has the option of seeking a Judge trial.

If not, as many might choose to wait for a trial by jury, then they should remain incarcerated until such time as circumstances allow for one.
Click to expand...

Hmm... is that because of your assumption of their guilt? The idea that these folks are choosing to have their trials delayed so that they can enjoy a longer (free?) stay in jail is a bit much. One of the big problems with our criminal "just us" system is that one can be arrested/charged, jailed awaiting trial and then be found not guilty (months later) and they are not allowed to seek any compensation for that "honest mistake".
 
Josie said:
How long is too long for an accused person to be in prison awaiting a jury trial?
Click to expand...

Again, there are processes to speed this up if it becomes necessary. I gave you the Judge-only option as one clear example.

If it becomes a real problem, then various methods of electronic means may be tested.

I respect what you say, as I advocate innocent until proven guilty too. But in all honesty, having served as a Public Defender, things can be a little problematic.

For example, would you really want a John Wayne Gacy, or a Jeffrey Dahmer released simply based on your ideal?

Hence my agreement that low level cases, and even non-violent Felonies where person's were not physically harmed might be candidates for low or no bail release.

But a blanket release? Even I can't support that. :no:

ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... is that because of your assumption of their guilt? The idea that these folks are choosing to have their trials delayed so that they can enjoy a longer (free?) stay in jail is a bit much. One of the big problems with our criminal "just us" system is that one can be arrested/charged, jailed awaiting trial and then be found not guilty (months later) and they are not allowed to seek any compensation for that "honest mistake".
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Most defendants waive "speedy trial" because their lawyers need more time for investigation and prep.
 
What should be done is what is being done. Fed and state inmates are being released in many places due to inmates not being able to keep six feet apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom