The general decline in standards today

[jamespowers]

So....could that picture get posted or would I be roasted for posting it?

Does this answer your question? :flame:

 

[LoveMyHats2]

I suppose it's all two sides of the same coin. Some people see plea bargains as dropping charges in return for cooperation. I used to. My perspective changed slightly, and now I see those very same negotiable charges as punishment for opting for the right to a trial by one's peers. I started seeing the glass as half empty, I guess.

That happens I am sure, and under the normal events in a court it is not all that bad. But what I was discussing, is not the 'normal" plea stuff...

I think if a person robs a store, and used a gun and no one was hurt if they plea, get 10 years, drop the gun use, and pleas, then to some degree justice was served and no extra expense from going to trial is a good thing.

But if you are arrested for robbing the store, and you have only one bit of evidence to show you are totally innocent and they want to roast you, trust me, they will roast you.

I recall a man named King that was charged with robbing a bank he was to have worked in. During the time it was robbed, he was at a large park, with the Mayor of his City, and over 45 people that knew and could account for his being at the park. He was not at the bank. The Bank was closed during the robbery just so you can have that information. He was found guilty. They wanted his conviction, they got it. The Judge manipulated that case like a puppeteer. His Defense Attorney, stunk and was in bed with the DA and Judge. As I stated, things happen. I dislike anyone paying a price for something they did not do, and the same if someone does break the law. Justice should be blind, but not deaf or dumb.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Does this answer your question? :flame:

Thank you, I always desire to stay within the rules...so I felt it best to ask. No flames for me, thanks! But the picture was god awfully funny!

 

[Tomasso]

Yes I have a picture of a certain device used to cook hot dogs, it is well, sort of a metal wire man figure that is made from steel, and the hot dogs are cooked while attached to the front of this device in a "colorful" way, if you will.....(yipes)! hahahah!

That device may be useful when cooking for one but not when you have a whole crew to feed.....

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Not a good idea Michigan :nono:

I know...but it was (is) a funny picture, to say the least.

And as you can tell, I asked as I want to do things by the rules and stay within what is right. Yeppers.....now..,........Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! hahahah lol!

 

[jamespowers]

That device may be useful when cooking for one but not when you have a whole crew to feed.....

Ah yes, BBQ at Charlie Sheen's house.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

That device may be useful when cooking for one but not when you have a whole crew to feed.....

How true and thanks! hahah!

 

[C-dot]

You as a "client" have no say so when the Judge on your case decides to NOT allow you to enter into evidence something that could prove your not guilty. When your attorney has already explained that out front to the judge and virtually sold you down the river, you had no clue it was done, you were not there to know it. Now your key bit of evidence is not going to be submitted to the court, you have no leg to stand on. You could plea...or go to trial, you will lose that case. It was all worked out long before you went to court for even the very first time. Illegal? Yep. It happens. Too much.

Oh yes, personal greed and oneupmanship throw a wrench into what is a beautiful design all too often. Even still, it isn't fair for people to paint the whole judicial system with that brush - I've met many more honest defense counsel, impartial Crowns, and fair (but sleepy) judges, and I'm sure anyone who has worked in those fields of law can say the same.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

That's true in theory, but in practice what it comes down to is the undesirable choice between shooting for complete acquittal and risking the harshest punishment, or guaranteeing a median punishment. The choice isn't made on the basis of guilt or innocence. It's made based on whether or not you think you could "win". There was a news article recently that sparked my opinion on the matter, that feared that prosecutors have been given way too much power as judge, jury and executioner through the ability to plea. I believe charges are either warranted or not, and shouldn't be used as leverage to coerce confessions. In one case, an accused was offered a plea of 5 years, turned it down, then turned down 10 years some time later, and now risks life. If justice is the goal, that's too great a variance. Justice is the goal, not verdicts. After all, landing a guilty plea to get to use your "case closed" stamp and smile to reporters does little good if the actual offender is still on the loose. The guy sitting in jail might be relieved he was only falsely sentenced to 5 years instead of 30, but it's still false.

I agree, it is sad that it happens that way, but does.

I strongly advise anyone falsely accused of any crime or civil action to BEG for a polygraph as most of the time if you do pass it, the Detectives involved with not elect to bring charges and the same goes to prosecutors.

 

[C-dot]

I strongly advise anyone falsely accused of any crime or civil action to BEG for a polygraph as most of the time if you do pass it, the Detectives involved with not elect to bring charges and the same goes to prosecutors.

Do American courts accept polygraph tests as evidence? They don't here or in the UK.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Oh yes, personal greed and oneupmanship throw a wrench into what is a beautiful design all too often. Even still, it isn't fair for people to paint the whole judicial system with that brush - I've met many more honest defense counsel, impartial Crowns, and fair (but sleepy) judges, and I'm sure anyone who has worked in those fields of law can say the same.

I can agree with that C-Dot, but for me, I have to say when even one person has had a life destroyed because of what I have personally seen, I just cannot stand to be around it, I value others too much, and I just had to walk from that entire life of what is called, "Justice System". I left that to the sharks that want to feed off it. No offense to anyone that works in that system or is an advocate of it.

From what I know of according to law, and your attorney, just MY opinion, if your attorney cannot and does not live and breath you case 24/7, as he should, you only have "partial" representation. It is a business, true, but many of them have also learned to make the "appearance" for the "record" that they are representing you, when they have only cha chinged the clock for payment and have done not so much. Next number, please...cha chinged....next number please...cha chinged...(you get my meaning)...

This is NOT directed to any Lounge members that work in a court for a living. I tip my hat if you are and hope the best for you and your clients.

 

[Atticus Finch]

That's true in theory, but in practice what it comes down to is the undesirable choice between shooting for complete acquittal and risking the harshest punishment, or guaranteeing a median punishment. The choice isn't made on the basis of guilt or innocence. It's made based on whether or not you think you could "win".

Please remember that defendants aren't required to make this decision alone and ill-informed. They have retained or appointed (or both) counsel and complete discovery. They know the evidence the State has against them before any plea offers are made. Indeed, evidence that isn't provided in discovery, isn't usually admissible at trial. They're not ambushed. Every effort is made to insure that the defendant's plea is informed and voluntary...if they choose to plea. Otherwise, they are afforded as fair a trial as humanly possible.

But, yes, it is about winning at trial. We have no time machines to go back and view the crime being committed. Instead, we try to assertain the truth (and thereby justice) through the trial process. And the truth, as established by the fact finders at trial, determines the winner.

AF

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Ah yes, BBQ at Charlie Sheen's house.

Those James, were being cooked for Lindsey Lohan, and we will not give any further details for the hot dogs' demise!

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Please remember that defendants aren't required to make this decision alone and ill-informed. They have retained or appointed (or both) counsel and complete discovery. They know the evidence the State has against them before any plea offers are made. Indeed, evidence that isn't provided in discovery, isn't usually admissible at trial. They're not ambushed. Every effort is made to insure that the defendant's plea is informed and voluntary...if they choose to plea. Otherwise, they are afforded as fair a trial as humanly possible.

But, yes, it is about winning at trial. We have no time machines to go back and view the crime being committed. Instead, we try to assertain the truth (and thereby justice) through the trial process. And the truth, as established by the fact finders at trial, determines the winner.

AF

To be fair to your viewpoint what you state is the norm, and how it is to work for everyone. My comments are based, upon personal observation and nothing more. I am very sure if you did happen to be in witness to what I observed, you would have felt as I did and do. Very disgusted and thinking that it is not how it should be, and that it goes against the very premise of what the court systems are designed to do. I am sure it does not happen in each court, with each judge nor with each DA, but in fact, I personally witnessed this take place for over a five year time period, in the two jurisdictions I made mention.

I knew a court clerk also that knew of this and was dead silent about it, until her Son was falsely arrested for something. Then she was wanting to speak up and have it known. Sadly her information as mine, landed on deaf ears. The last sentence or so in your statement is what my complaint is all about the "fact finder"...when the fact finder has worked out what "facts" that he (or she) can prevent from coming into the court on your behalf, such a control is critical, to the sense you may not any longer have a defense. That is my point, nothing more. It stinks and it happens.

 

[C-dot]

Instead, we try to assertain the truth (and thereby justice) through the trial process. And the truth, as established by the fact finders at trial, determines the winner.

That reminds me of a statement my evidence law professor made in college that instantly changed how I thought about it: "It's not the truth that matters, its the truth you can prove."

(It requires some explanation - He wasn't inferring that an advocate should push his or her fabricated version of the events, he was saying that only the truth makes sense, and any part of that truth that cannot be proved doesn't mean anything to the Court. If you watch Judge Judy, you've heard her say "If it isn't here, it doesn't exist." This is the same principle.)

 

[LoveMyHats2]

Do American courts accept polygraph tests as evidence? They don't here or in the UK.

No they are not "bound" but there are a few cases that MAY allow them to be admitted, but, the norm is, if you pass the "poly" they go into a new direction and will leave you alone.

 

[Pompidou]

That reminds me of a statement my evidence law professor made in college that instantly changed how I thought about it: "It's not the truth that matters, its the truth you can prove."

(It requires some explanation - He wasn't inferring that an advocate should push his or her fabricated version of the events, he was saying that only the truth makes sense, and any part of that truth that cannot be proved doesn't mean anything to the Court. If you watch Judge Judy, you've heard her say "If it isn't here, it doesn't exist." This is the same principle.)

I agree with your professor's quote 100%. There have been many times in my life where the excuse that exonerated me was too unbelievable to bother with, and in such cases, I just pleaded guilty, so to speak. IE: One time, my dog actually did eat my homework. My statement to the teacher, "Sorry, I totally forgot to do it." A believable lie beats an unbelievable truth any day. It's no good being honest if doing so leads people to believe you're a liar.

 

[Tomasso]

That reminds me of a statement my evidence law professor made in college that instantly changed how I thought about it: "It's not the truth that matters, its the truth you can prove."

(It requires some explanation - He wasn't inferring that an advocate should push his or her fabricated version of the events, he was saying that only the truth makes sense, and any part of that truth that cannot be proved doesn't mean anything to the Court.

And yet there are cases like the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.

 

[jamespowers]

And yet there are cases like the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.

And the guy from the Fugitive movies.

 

[LoveMyHats2]

That reminds me of a statement my evidence law professor made in college that instantly changed how I thought about it: "It's not the truth that matters, its the truth you can prove."

(It requires some explanation - He wasn't inferring that an advocate should push his or her fabricated version of the events, he was saying that only the truth makes sense, and any part of that truth that cannot be proved doesn't mean anything to the Court. If you watch Judge Judy, you've heard her say "If it isn't here, it doesn't exist." This is the same principle.)

True the same is if you know the "law" in a case, you argue the law, if not, and you know the facts, you argue that as best you can.

In all fairness I am sure some in the legal profession do the best they can. It is for those that take advantage of the mere position and do so for an agenda not in keeping with the job title, or lawful charge they should uphold, that bothered me. As you are aware it is almost in totality, even an Attorney is a council of the very court itself, but not all of them really care. Had I stayed in the legal profession as a career, I would either be the best known for how much I would have had to virtually LIVED each case for a client, and become wealthy from being able to do so, or, I would have been the poorest of them all, for doing the very same thing, giving each client such a level of attention, to live and to breath their case, leaving no rock unturned, no motion unfiled, no evident finding hearing left untouched....until I could do nothing else humanly possible for the client....enough said.