All of it.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t a trial over whether or not the Beatles ordered the Manson slayings or a Black Lab ordered the Son of Sam killings a waste of time? (link)
Isn’t a trial over whether or not the Beatles ordered the Manson slayings or a Black Lab ordered the Son of Sam killings a waste of time? (link)
Sure, murderous criminals don’t deserve a fair trial. That makes perfect sense. But how do we determine whether someone is a murderous criminal that doesn’t deserve a fair trial, and an innocent person who does?
Maybe we could have some sort of hearing, where some impartial people listen to the evidence presented, and then the impartial people will decide if the person in question is a murderous criminal who doesn’t deserve a fair trial, or an innocent person who does deserve a fair trial?
And wouldn’t it make sense, if the person in question who deserves a fair trial because they are innocent, to not actually have the trial, since the person was determined to be not guilty?
But since we don’t know whether the person deserves a fair trial or not, the hearing to determine whether they deserve a fair trial would have to be fair, right? Since we don’t know for sure whether they don’t deserve it yet?
Maybe we could come up with a snappy name for the impartial hearing to determine whether someone deserves a fair trial or not. Any ideas?
Since neither trial was about that, they weren’t wastes of time.
But the fundamental point is that until a trial occurs there’s no way of reliably knowing if the accused is guilty, or what they are guilty of, or what mitigating factors may have contributed, or what the mental state of the accused is.
Son of Sam was a guilty plea. Some of the Manson trial was on the allegedly murderous desires of the Beatles.
Are you going to acknowledge that Manson is a bad example since he likely wouldn’t have been caught at all if the police did what you want them to do?
Due process of the law is never a waste of time.
Bolding mine.
If we’re interested in avoiding “making a mockery” of a fundamental part of our civilization, it sure seems to me that avoiding police abusing or killing arrestees on a whim is probably the thing more important to preserve.
Said another way, bringing in the suspect dead certainly makes a mockery of anything the judge or jury would have been able to say had the suspect survived to stand trial. If trial court is an important enough concept not to be made a mockery of, it’s also an important enough concept not to be rendered moot at willy nilly random.
Much of the so-called circus with Manson or OJ was simply the prurient news media selling adverts to eyeballs as hard as they could. It had precious little impact on the quality of the decision rendered.
it’s really pretty embarrassing to me as an American that there are apparently other American citizens so utterly unaware of the founding ideals of their own country.
I think you have a point. I must have gotten rid of my copy of Helter Skelter. I was going to look it up but my vague recollection is you’re right.
Maybe a quick trip to the prison’s general population would have helped matters a bit.
After that, it’s probably too late for the cops to, oops, kill one of his associates.
Anyway, I don’t think that’s the only case where one criminal has led to other, possibly worse, criminals, so maybe we should let the system of justice here do its job rather than cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
They should get the same amount of due process that everybody else gets.
Slight hijack: Are Manson and Berkowitz kept out of the general prison population? If not, what criteria have to be met for an inmate to be kept away from other inmates for his own safety?
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3202/Charles-Manson-Trial-1970-71-Case-Draws-Presidential-Remark.html
Manson spoke for 90 minutes to a courtroom without a jury present, they never heard a word that he said. Prosecutors introduced the evidence of the Beatles songs inspiring Manson to start a race war. It was used to describe Manson’s motivations. So while evidence was presented about the Beatles, it was from the prosecution not the defense. It never suggested anything about the music other than how Manson interpreted it.
In New York, there are two ways a prisoner can be indefinitely taken out of general population. They are both commonly called Protective Custody (or PC). But technically, Protective Custody is when the prisoner requests to be removed from general population. (In prison parlance, he’ll sign himself into PC.) He’ll be placed in a special unit and a hearing will be held to determine if he needs to stay in Protective Custody. A prisoner in Protective Custody can change his mind and ask to be placed back in general population.
The other procedure is Administrative Segregation (commonly known as admin seg). In this procedure, it’s the prison administration that initiates the removal from general population. Like a PC, the prisoner will be placed in a special unit. There will be a hearing but it’s usually a foregone conclusion; the administration doesn’t put somebody into Administrative Segregation unless it thinks it has a good reason so the hearing is usually just a confirmation of what was already decided. A prisoner who has been in admin seg can challenge it and request a new hearing on a periodic basis to decide if he still needs to be separated from general population. In addition, if a prisoner who is in Protective Custody decides he wants to go back to general population, the administration might decide it’s a bad idea and switch the prisoner over to Administrative Segregation status instead.
There’s another way Administrative Segregation is sometimes used. Say you have a prisoner who is in a bad situation at one prison and you’re resolving this by transferring him to another prison. It usually takes a day or two to arrange a transfer and you don’t want him in general population for that day or two. So you lock him up in admin seg. You have three days from the day you put a prisoner into admin seg until you have to hold the hearing to determine whether he should stay in admin seg. During that time period, you transfer the prisoner to another prison and at the other prison they release him back into general population with no hearing being held.
I suppose the question is more “what would be the criteria the administration would use to decide that Admin Seg would be appropriate for inmate #1234?” Risk he presents to others or staff, risk others or staff present to him?, etc.
These are all fairly bad dudes; how bad (or unbad) a dude is too bad to be left to fend for himself? What other considerations are there?
A lot of people already get killed by the police, including murderers. Is the OP just upset that certain murderers were captured and not killed? Maybe there is a double standard regarding which murderers are killed and which ones are apprehended?
I wouldn’t be so solicitous of their safety.
You’re actually right but does it matter? Is it relevant to “try” the Beatle’s impact on life in Southern California?
Just admit you want revenge and be done with it.
The problem with that attitude is that it’s juvenile and leads to more problems down the road, like blood feuds, or terrorist attacks by people who feel wronged.
The reason society should not indulge in a revenge-based criminal system is because there are no guarantees, even after a conviction, that a person actually committed a crime.
Police and prosecutors and lab techs have falsified evidence. It’s easy to force confessions. Not to mention that some people just make mistakes.
Of course it matters. Firstly, you were wrong about the defense arguing what the Beatles were saying. Secondly, the prosecution was explaining the motive, which is standard operating procedure regardless of whether the motive is objectively true.
Since this never happened, it’s irrelevant.
I am not scared of a blood feud with the Manson group or a 6000 year old man giving orders through a Black Lab.
My point is that there most matters do deserve trials; some do not.