That's true. I'm all for Pakistan adapting the justice system of the west, I really really hope it does.
The only con I'm speaking of is that the criminals are becoming smarter knowing they have such and such rights and they know exactly how to fool the system.
Almost all over the world the deck is stacked against the little guy. Even in the west the public defens lawyers are a joke. Routinely they come to agreement with prosecutor even when defendant not guilty. The prosecution has way more resources than the defendant. And deck even more stacked if defendant is colored
Main problem is not the bad guy is walking - but the little guy is getting railroaders.
Hmm I dunno. The average criminal in the west doesn't have to face a fraction of the hardships that a desperate criminal back home may be experiencing and still their prisons remain overcrowded. NOTtrue. Prison in the US is overflowing because prison system is getting privatized - nob violent actions are getting criminalized -! Prisoners lose their voting rightsx- so from a cynics pov therecis even a method to this madness. Abour 25% of black males in the us have been in jail.
Even if certain cunning ones are able to fool the system, I guess I can find solace in the fact that no innocent people are being thrown into prisons with the modern justice system, which isn't the case in Pakistan. That's a good way to look at it I suppose.
I did a double take at the statement no innocent people being thrown.... nothing could be further from reality IMO
I did a double take at the statement no innocent people being thrown.... nothing could be further from reality IMO
^Agree.
The Miranda Rights warns the individual taken into custody by law enforcement that anything that they say and do can be be used against them in a court of law. Things said/done in such a tense state of mind (at the time of arrest along with interrogation) don't always provide an accurate picture of what happened. Without thinking clearly your words/actions may be used as ammunition against you......which would be worse if you're innocent. So, one of the "pros" would be that it protects the suspect taken into custody.
^ we were watchibg a program re: a judge who souls sentencemostly young girls - say 14-16 for very minorcoffences. Apparently the juvenile "prison" was privatizes. The judge had a financial stake. Broke my heart to see the young lives being destroyed. Heard of at least another case like this.
Then there is this 80+ yr old sheriff in Arizona. He is now going after a 6" year old. Depressing.
both systems have their advantages and disadvantages
the advantage to a more organized system like the one in the US is that the chance of an innocent person ending up serving a sentence is minimized (though not eradicated)
the disadvantage is that sometimes criminals use the system to dodge a sentence
===
the advantage to a less organized system is that its easier to put a criminal behind bars
the disadvantage is that its also easier to put the innocent behind bars
so then the question becomes would you rather have a system that endangers the innocent more but also ensures more criminals end up where they belong or would you rather have a system that makes it more difficult for the innocent to end up behind bars but maximizes the possibility of criminals ending up where the belong .... in other words are you willing to risk the innocent in order to catch the criminal
I was sort of all over the place but you put everything perfectly, lexi! That’s exactly what I meant to ask. Like I said in post 13, I for one would not be willing to risk the innocent. The other disadvantage of the less organized system in India, Pakistan etc is that you can buy your way out of prison and that is the real reason why I think we need stricter regulations back home so that the authorities themselves can be held accountable. There’s nearly no accountability right now and with the current corruption scandals going on, it seems like har banda paisay ka pujaari hai. Ek Chief Justice tau inse bardasht nahin hota, pata nahin stricter justice system kaise hoga.
Southie, yeah I’m sure everything isn’t hunky dory. Wasn’t the LA police in news a while back for having planted evidence or something? But generally speaking, the system works great. Does it not?
I would disagree with Lx that in "organized" system chances of innocent ending up in jail is minimuzed. I would change that to less - minimization is too far away.
Bcue agreed aboutstuff not being hunky dory in the west. For African americanssystem definitely does not work great. Rodney king beating and subsequent acquittal in spite of tape case in point. But I trust the justice system in us more than indo-pak system.
Going by memory the us incrimination per capita is the highest in the world or among the highest. One of the rich contributors to Nj gov Christie made lot of money running a juvenile house. Criminalization is becoming good for business.
Was watching the Chris Hayes show Sat morning. 94% of arrests related to small amount of marijuana possession is blacks and Hispanics. Depressing statistic.
How could four men confess to a brutal crime that they didn’t commit? Inside the incredible saga of the Norfolk Four – a case that cracks open the justice system to reveal almost everything that goes wrong when innocent people get convicted.
Seriously this is sad. As one of the commers States such abuse of power probably occurs more frequently with the poor and minorities.guilty until Provence innocent.
Seriously this is sad. As one of the commers States such abuse of power probably occurs more frequently with the poor and minorities.guilty until Provence innocent.
Thanks need all the help getting them votes from the South..........:)
About the Norfolk four case, the tragic part was a Black Man confessed to the rape and murder while he was serving jail time!, but the Prosecutor Idiot did not want to believe that at all!
both systems have their advantages and disadvantages
the advantage to a more organized system like the one in the US is that the chance of an innocent person ending up serving a sentence is minimized (though not eradicated)
the disadvantage is that sometimes criminals use the system to dodge a sentence
===
the advantage to a less organized system is that its easier to put a criminal behind bars
the disadvantage is that its also easier to put the innocent behind bars
so then the question becomes would you rather have a system that endangers the innocent more but also ensures more criminals end up where they belong or would you rather have a system that makes it more difficult for the innocent to end up behind bars but maximizes the possibility of criminals ending up where the belong .... in other words are you willing to risk the innocent in order to catch the criminal
Re your 2nd sentence today bill moter show guest - out of 270000 black young males in net York city 220000 were stopped searched and frisked.
both systems have their advantages and disadvantages
the advantage to a more organized system like the one in the US is that the chance of an innocent person ending up serving a sentence is minimized (though not eradicated)
the disadvantage is that sometimes criminals use the system to dodge a sentence
===
the advantage to a less organized system is that its easier to put a criminal behind bars
the disadvantage is that its also easier to put the innocent behind bars
so then the question becomes would you rather have a system that endangers the innocent more but also ensures more criminals end up where they belong or would you rather have a system that makes it more difficult for the innocent to end up behind bars but maximizes the possibility of criminals ending up where the belong .... in other words are you willing to risk the innocent in order to catch the criminal
Re your 2nd sentence today bill moter show guest - out of 270000 black young males in net York city 220000 were stopped searched and frisked.
Soft interrogation > Less Criminals caught and Less Innocents harrassed
Hard interrogation > More Criminals caught and More Innocents harrassed
Less Criminals caught = Increased Risk to Society (0)
Less Innocents harrassed = Increased Fairness to Society (1)
More Criminals caught = Reduced Crime in Society (1)
More Innocents harrassed = Increased Unfairness to Society (-1)
Coming from an Islamic angle here ... There is a hadith in Nawawi's 40 hadith - "There shall be no harm nor reciprocating harm"
I have put points above ... Releasing a criminal is not tantamount to a "sin/crime" - For example if a burglar is released on bail or parole and they do another burglary in the meantime - the law is not accountable for that crime ... they are merely accountable for letting the criminal go ... they have merely "taken a risk" ... it is not as good as taking a postive action, but it is better than a negative one ... hence I scored it with (0).
In the case of where more innocents are harrassed - this is actually contributing to harming society and also increases the risk of unfairness ... so this is given a rating of (-1)
Adding the scores for the soft handed approach - we get a rating of (1) overall
Adding the score for the hard handed approach - we get a rating of (0) overall
So the soft handed approach is better ... and hence the right one to take ...
I agree with some bits in this thread and disagree with others.
However innocents in UK do get chucked in prison, the instances where complete lack of evidence in sex cases where its just one word against another's and which results in innocents being put into prison and their lives and families being destroyed is atrocious.
UK has developed a shocking claims culture, where stupid useless people spend their time putting in fake cases so they can make a few bob. This all is my personal experience when practising law.
Pysah also summed it up perfectly.
[QUOTE]
n the more civilized part of the world, the bechara officer interrogates a suspect for hours and gets nothing but "No comment" as a response to every question asked.
[/QUOTE]
This is advised by every criminal lawyer, the very good reason being that if you even answer one question and you say something wrong and the case goes to trial you will NOT be able to go back on your word. Infront of a jury your whole credibility is gone. However if you say ''no comment'' then that won't happen as there would be nothing to slip up in the first place.
It also protects innocent people who never have been to a station and who are terrified of the whole experience and hence who may slip up and say something wrong under pressure and incriminate themselves (i.e. if someone's lied and reported them for a rape and an innocent person slips up in an interview and eg gets a date wrong then that's it, if he's said it in an interview he'll be in massive trouble if the case goes to trial) and bam they're charged, their career is done and if they said something they shouldn't have then they 9/10 times will regret it at trial. What people are advised is to read a prepared statement and say then say no comment to every question.
Just watching Chris Hayes show. In Illinois several counties are throwing poor people in jail for not being to pay their debt. The counties have hired collection agencies. These agencies file lawsuits. Many times these people are not even served lawsuits. Because the agency hires a sewer service that forges that you have received it. Though you are legally required to be served personally. Or it is mailed to wrong addredd. You get arrested for 1) not showingup in court ( though you don't know about it 2) not paying debt though you are broke.
Sometimes the debt is just the court fee youvare supposed to pay that you don't know about. Or a traffic violation stop. Or a blenders purchased through credit card whose payments you cant make since you lost your job.
So poor people thrownin prison for unpaid debt. They lose custody of children. The amount of debt collected or owed is much less than amount spent paying collection agencies etc to collect debt wand amount spent incarcerating them.
While Goldman Sachs Deutsche bank UBS Citigroup get bailed out get interest free loans and 100 cents to the dollar to make whole throw risks they took in the financial crisis.
Ek Chief Justice tau inse bardasht nahin hota, pata nahin stricter justice system kaise hoga.