Alright, I concede that Robocop should be allowed to shoot people whenever he wants, but no one else ok.
Printable View
Alright, I concede that Robocop should be allowed to shoot people whenever he wants, but no one else ok.
You really hated those "show your work" type of questions in highschool didn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I'm not really concerned about violent criminals being killed after the fact. I'm not necessarily supporting it but it probably does far more good than harm to the community at large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Also I consider any effort to use force to resist arrest a violent crime.
And what does that make the Garner case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Lewk, if I pick up a gun go out on the street, pick a person at random and shoot them in the head and it later turns out that the person I shot was a serial paedophile that does not mean shooting random people is a good idea, it just means I got lucky. What's at issue is how quickly police in America resort to lethal force - information they could not have access to when they're deciding whether or not to shoot is not relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You don't think the resulting riots count as harm? You don't think a situation where no one in the community trusts the police because they keep shooting people counts as harm? Think, man.Quote:
I'm not necessarily supporting it but it probably does far more good than harm to the community at large.
If you're going to have such a broad definition of 'violent crime', that kind of makes a mockery of your notion that lethal force is *always* an appropriate response to violent crime, doesn't it?Quote:
Also I consider any effort to use force to resist arrest a violent crime.
I don't get the criticism of the grand jury system. Considering that the grand jury brings charges a vast majority of the time, but almost never against cops, surely the problem is with the culture that believes cops should be given a benefit of the doubt, not with the grand jury system itself.
I bet Lewk's one of those people who think that people who're caught speeding while drunk in a residential should not be punished as long as they haven't actually killed someone :o
I'm more weirded out by the crazy prosecutors but I'm not sure what unique and vital function a grand jury serves that compensates for the consequences of leaving these decisions in the hands of angry dumb laymen who're easily manipulated by a prosecutor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well, one of the things they do is reduce the burden on the courts. Grand juries aren't a part of the court system and using them reduces the congestion from requiring trial judges to sit for the probable cause hearings. That said, their original purpose is as a check on the government, they were to protect people from groundless/excessive government action. These days they're just a rubber stamp so no, they do not serve an important function anymore.
Um the opposite really. I'm in favor of harsh penalties on scum who drink and drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I really don't see why police aren't camping out in front of bars EVERY night just to grab more people. Drunk driving deaths could easily be prevented if you locked the scum up BEFORE they kill someone.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were okay with hypocritical exceptions to your "no harm, no foul" philosophy
Some American guy on the radio explaining the grand jury system for the benefit of confused brits (dot com!) said usually the reason the Grand Jury wouldn't give the case the go ahead was basically because the prosecutor didn't want to. True or false?
Well, the proceedings of a grand jury are kept secret.
Ain't that a fun system?
I'll admit that most I know about this is from wikipedia, but there it says that the proceedings are supervised by the prosecutor, and that the jurors do not get instructions on the law, and aren't screened for bias. Seems pretty unfair and open for rubber stamping, if you ask me. Can a grand jury result be overruled? Over here it's the prosecutor's discretion what cases to bring to court (which may be thrown out in a preliminary hearing), but if he decides not to the victim (or anyone with standing) can appeal that decision before judges, which may order the prosecutors to bring the case to trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Criminal grand juries, where they're used, are typically a replacement for or adjunct to prosecutorial discretion. Some counties simply don't allow prosecutorial discretion for certain cases and in a lot of the places it's the prosecutor fishing for whether they have a chance in hell of getting a conviction; if they can't even convince a grand jury they're never going to stand a chance at trial. And while I don't think a grand jury can be directly overruled, they're only one of the very early steps in criminal proceedings and serve the same function as a probable cause hearing presided over by a judge. When a case does go before a judge afterward, they'll be able to grant a summary dismissal if its warranted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
As Flixy has already indicated; interested parties can ask a judge to review a decision to not prosecute. I'm certain the public prosecution overhere would rather not have to go to court over the same criminal case twice and thus are less likely to decide to not prosecute controversial cases. I think that in both recent cases justice would have been served better by a court case.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If it's in the place of prosecutorial discretion, but apparently often a rubber stamp, in effect you still have prosecutorial discretion. And while I understand that a judge can grant a summary dismissal, instead of a preliminary hearing for probably cause (which would in effect do the same), my question is more about what happens when a case does not go forward. As Hazir and I said, over here with the discretion you can appeal the decision not to go forward, but if it's decided by a grand jury (which, with rubberstamping is in effect almost the same as discretion), can that be appealed? If not, options seem limited if a prosecutor isn't particularly interested in going forward. And considering prosecutors and the police are often on the same side, that could be seen as having a bias not to go forward. I'm not saying that's what happens, but it may appear to be so, and I think it's fair to say a large cause of the unrest recently has been because the public doesn't trust the policing of the police, and appearing to have a bias like this does not help.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Ah, I see what you're talking about not. I wasn't thinking about the cases where things don't go forward but more about Minx's issues. Depending on the area, a grand jury would be the way around prosecutorial discretion leading to choosing not to prosecute, serving as an alternative means of bringing charges. That's getting rarer though and typically, the decision not to prosecute (either by grand jury or by prosecutor) is not challengeable. If you don't like the job your officials are doing you impeach them or refuse to re-elect them and get someone new in. The prosecutor (or a new one) can always change their minds and decide to level charges after all, the only limits are those provided in a statute of limitations and by the restriction against double jeopardy.
In my own state, which uses grand juries in an atypical manner, questionable decisions to not prosecute like the ones you're talking about is something a county's grand jury might actually choose to investigate and indict the prosecutor on. Ours are called civil grand juries and are for investigating actions by local government and bringing them to task for misfeasance.
True. That "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich" isn't just a stereotype, but a fact. The process might have started with good intentions, as a check-and-balance on prosecutors, or freeing up court time, but that's not how it's used today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's important to know that District Attorneys are political positions in the US, whether they're elected or appointed. And that they rely on the police to do their job of prosecuting crimes.
<It's a challenge for any US public servant to name their 'master', when it's based on a broken political system.>
Fuzzy, is there something preventing new criminal charges against police in Missouri and/or New York for wrongful death...even if grand juries said otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
If you don't succeed, keep on making up new charges. What can possibly be wrong with that policy.
Not sure what you're saying/asking. It's pretty clear that NYC police caused the death of Eric Garner. The Medical Examiner deemed it homicide. A grand jury didn't find "reasonable cause" to indict the police involved....but that doesn't mean a prosecutor can't proceed with new criminal charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm confused why the DA gave "immunity" to the other cops involved, and just wanted to prosecute one policeman, when it was clear that at least five cops (and several superiors who dictated policy) were just as responsible.
The grand jury disagrees. So legally speaking, it's not clear that NYC police caused the person's death in an illegal manner.
In case you don't know, there's a thing called double jeopardy. You can't be charged twice for the same underlying crime. In terms of grand jury trials, you'd need new material evidence before you could come back.
The medical examiner deemed the death a homicide.
Double jeopardy only applies to criminal trials -- and grand juries aren't trials.
Not that I'm aware of, nor is there anything preventing attempting to pursue the old charges via judge or a fresh grand jury if anything new comes to light. But I'm not particularly informed on the particulars of how New York uses grand juries. AFAIK though, you DO still need to bring something new to the table to have a previously-addressed matter reconsidered. That's not explicit in the Constitution but from case law, existing precedent on due process protections. Some jurisdictions will also have it explicit by statute, and some courts will have it as a rule just to make it clear how they feel about prosecutors trying to waste their time with fishing expeditions. On the subject of immunity, I do know that if one is subpoenaed to testify as a witness in a New York grand jury, immunity is more or less automatic. This is required as the testimony is compulsory and would otherwise violate 5th amendment rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Sounds interesting - those civil grand juries, I assume they are not made up for every new case like a normal jury? Considering they can also investigate local government themselves. Is it random selection like normal juries?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Does a grand jury equal a prosecution in the double jeopardy rules? As in, if a grand jury decides not to bring a case forward, can that be undone later with new evidence? Because AFAIK new evidence does not affect double jeopardy. Over here if a prosecutor decides to drop charges, he can always pick them back up later and prosecute after all without breaching double jeopardy. Only exception is when he formally informs you that he's dropping charges permanently, because otherwise it would be a breach of his good faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The reason I'm asking all this is that because in a case where the police is the defendant, and the prosecutor is seemingly biased towards the police because they are usually on the same side, and grand juries are greatly influenced by the prosecutor... That seems like it's stacking the odds heavily in favour of the defendant (at least it looks like that, and like I mentioned earlier it seems your police/prosecutors have a big image problem when it comes to enforcing laws against the police). Now if a grand jury is properly independent and not a rubber stamp thing, the system seems reasonable enough, but otherwise it seems weird for me there's no way to overturn what's basically a prosecutor's decision.
BTW, the victim's family could still sue in civil court, no? All of this only affects criminal charges, right?
Homicide, AFAIK, means a non natural death caused by another human but that does not mean murder/manslaughter/etc., and does not mean the policeman in question did anything wrong. For that a lot of other things come into play, intent, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I'm sure Fuzzy can answer that better than I can. From what I know, it's not double jeopardy in the strict sense, but you'd need materially new evidence (i.e. fundamentally important new evidence). You could get civil rights charges (federal), but the feds said there's no justification for those.
Double jeopardy doesn't apply to going from criminal to civil court.
Well, the proceedings being secret doesn't help very much either. So, not only do we have a deck of stacked cards, no, we have a secret deck of stacked cards.
Court proceedings could be secret too...
I'm not seeing why court proceedings should ever be secret completely. Otherwise you'll just get kangoroo courts and rubberstamped proceedings for stupid stuff like "national security".
This wasn't secret completely either. We know exactly what evidence was presented...
Now you're playing dumb, Loki. I'm talking about complete openness, save for details which might endanger witnesses.
That would matter only in highly salient cases. No one's going to bother televising most grand jury proceedings, and I'm willing to bet they won't get newspaper coverage either.
If no one's interested then I don't see the point in keeping it secret in the first place.
The point is that it won't matter; it won't help fix the problem with grand juries.
Yeah, right, accountability is such a bad thing, won't ever fix anything. :rolleyes:
In essence, you're arguing for kangooroo courts and star chambers because you think that secret proceedings are such a nice thing to have. Bravo!
The whole point of these courts is to determine whether there's enough evidence to go to trial. You're making it sound like grand juries send people to jail.
No, they're impaneled each year and select a set of topics/issues to look into for the year when formed. I'm not sure on just how selection works, but people interested in participating contact the local Superior Court which administrates the panel and there is an extensive screening process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I don't know that "fundamentally important new evidence" is accurate, that strikes me as too strong, but it's fundamentally just a different venue for a "probable cause" hearing and follows fairly similar rules. The only major exception I'm aware of is that there's no requirement for the defendant to appear or even be informed of the proceedings. I just realized that's actually a part of one of the useful functions a grand jury serves and not necessarily an abuse. You can't do a probable cause hearing with someone who isn't in custody because the probable cause hearing, procedurally, is all about the 4th amendment's protection against warrantless & indefinite arrest. If you want to lay charges against someone you don't have in custody yet, you need a grand jury. The most you can get out of the courts is a warrant for arrest with further steps held until the person is in custody.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
And Khend, Loki's right about grand juries being "secret." The discussions/conferences/advice a prosecutor might seek before using prosecutorial privilege to lay charges against someone are also protected information. If a judge orders they can be forced to cough 'em up, just as a judge can order the record of grand jury proceedings to be unsealed but the process is not something they've ever been required to generally divulge.
What exactly is that secrecy for? I don't see anything useful coming out of that. As of yet, I have not seen one single useful argument supporting all this secrecy. Merely a "What does it matter?" by Loki which is a non-argument. And wrong to boot.
They're doing the opposite: They make people go not to jail. What use are all those court proceedings if you can simply bypass that through a biased prosecutor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Plus the relatives could sue the police for damages, right? Considering they are responsible for the victim's death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well secret grand juries aren't exactly a bad thing per se - aside from the reasons already mentioned, I oppose the perp walk thing (and in fact over here suspects are not identified by their last name in the media, usually), even bringing charges against someone can be very disruptive in your life, if even discussing whether to bring charges also becomes a media event.. (I realise that is what happened here, but I think that's more of an exception). Do you also want the police to publicly name and shame all suspects? And a use I got more from fiction, to hear evidence needed to press charges on, say, a mobster, in secret, to protect witnesses (and to not warn the suspect off).Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Thanks. Though I thought the principle of juries was that they are of your peers, and this seems biased towards people who want to do extra work to bring law and order. Then again, also open for people who want to check on the prosecutors/local government/etc., so I guess that balances out. Though since wikipedia mentioned grand juries are usually supervised by the prosecutor's office, if they also do the screening and selection that could of course bring a bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
And I suppose all of this is also different from state to state and in federal courts? To keep things simple for us? :p
Anonymizing is different from the records not being accessible at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
For instance, in Germany basically anyone related to court proceedings has the right to access the files pertaining to the case.
Even while your case is still active (but you're not in court, in which case it would of course be evidence)? IIRC (and I may be very wrong) the same thing is a right here, but only if your case is no longer active, and there's no public safety concerns or something similar. I would not be surprised if the USA also had something along the lines of the FOIA regarding old court/DA files.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro