User Jasmine’s opinions regarding the US system of jurisprudence

The BBQ Pit
1

Continuing the discussion from Luigi murder case–15,000 documents?:

This is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Under US Constitutional jurisprudence, everyone accused of a felony crime is afforded presumption of innocence; the opportunity to confront their accuser(s), and access to potentially exculpatory or mitigating information, to testify (or refuse to testify) in their own defense, and establish and present a defense based upon reasonable doubt of some element of the prosecution’s case; and the right of trial by a jury of peers. What may be “obvious” to you, as filtered through the media because (I assume) that you do not have first hand access to evidence and testimony, is examined by a criminal court through the establish procedure to ensure that no corners are cut, the provenance of evidence and authenticity of expert testimony is established, and that eyewitness or character testimony for or against the case can be challenged by the opposing counsel, and then presented to said jury (or just a judge if the defendant elects a bench trial), all on record so as to minimize the chance that bias, error, or malfeasance will result in conviction of someone whose guilt is questionable. You may be impatient in the case of Mangioni because his guilt is “obvious” to you, but if you were in the situation of being unjustly accused of a felony crime you would appreciate the legal protections and concessions afforded to your defense.

In the case of Mangioni, it seems unlikely to the point of certainty that he will be able to mount a defense that establishes any significant uncertainty in the crimes he is accused of, and he will in fact spend a good portion of his life in prison (albeit probably not a “life sentence with no possibility of parole”), and the system of criminal justice of the State of New York will assure that this is done in public view with no question that he has been railroaded or evidence has been manipulated to make him appear to be guilty. If you would prefer to live in a country where such protections are not afforded to criminal defendants, you have plenty of choices around the world although as a general rule you’ll find that their respect for human rights, respect for democratic institutions, and general ‘rule of law’ could be charitably described as pretty deficient.

Stranger

2

Thanks for this, Stranger

3

If there’s a problem, it’s that cases that aren’t so high-profile don’t get nearly as much effort, on either side. Someone who murders a drug dealer is just as deserving of the same prison sentence as this guy, and someone who’s accused of murdering a drug dealer deserves just as thorough a defense.

4

In an era where our system of guaranteed rights for citizens is actively under assault from the very top of the government, it is criminally ignorant for ordinary folks to be loudly chanting for what amounts to vigilante frontier justice.

Ask not for whom summary execution comes; it comes for thee.

5

Of course the guy gets a fair trial.

Jasmine expresses what I believe most people believe, the guy is guilty. It’s quite evident.

An impartial jury gonna be tough.

6

It’s one thing to believe he’s guilty. No real harm in that (but keep an open mind). Jasmine expressed something different. “He should already be serving a life sentence.” How is that going to be accomplished? You’d either have to skip the “trial” part of the proceedings, or you’d have to rush it to trial and not give the defense adequate time to prepare. As I posted in the other thread, it’s only been four months. Hardly “justice delayed” territory yet. There is a real problem getting cases to trial in a timely manner in many parts of this country. This case is not an example of that.

7

No, she explicitly states that “[t]his guy should already be serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole,” essentially advocating for summary judgment without review. But thanks for your homespun apologism for negating the rule of law and equal treatment regardless of how guilty someone appears through the lens of public sentiment.

Stranger

8

He’ll get his day in court.

9

Not if Jasmine had her way, he wouldn’t.

10

No thanks to you apparently!

11

There most definitely is a problem, and that’s understating the problem quite considerably. The problem is that miscarriage of justice is so prevalent in the US that it’s practically routine. While I agree with pretty much everything @Stranger_On_A_Train has said, the high ideals he describes are, tragically, often more pro forma than real, with a person’s wealth and stature conferring enormous advantage in mounting a defense. IOW, I completely agree with Stranger’s point, and that it’s dangerous thinking to say the he should “already” be behind bars with a life sentence before due process has occurred. In the case of Mangioni, he will be able to get the full benefit of due process, but only because his family is wealthy.

A good example of a major miscarriage of justice – just one of many that were investigated by media and by the Innocence Project, is the case of Cameron Todd WIllingham, executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three young children. The case became well known only in retrospect, after he was executed, as more and more evidence was unearthed establishing his innocence. A major factor in the miscarriage of justice was that his public defender was a hostile ass who was both incompetent and uncaring, and believed his client was guilty and deserved to be convicted.

Conversely, there’s OJ Simpson, acquitted of a murder that he almost certainly committed. His “dream team” of some of the nation’s top defence lawyers was a big part of the reason, though admittedly, poor police work and a weak prosecutor were also factors.

That may well be, but if so, it also raises the question of inequitable sentences. The high-profile case of Travis and Greg McMichael comes to mind. They were sentenced for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a young black man that they had pursued, believing him to be a burglar. Now, what they did was horrific and indefensible, particularly since they were motivated by racial bigotry, but IIRC the shooting occurred in the course of a struggle. They were also charged with attempted kidnapping which appeared to be their real intent. Whereas Mangioni’s crime was premeditated and carefully planned. It was nothing less than a mob-style hit job, an assassination.

Yet the sentences the McMichaels both received (IIRC) was life in prison with no possibility of parole (in Canada, FWIW, such a sentence would be considered unconstitutional – not that some individuals don’t end up getting put away for life, but the Supreme Court ruled that such a determination could not be made a priori). And then on top of the life sentence with no parole, they got another life sentence for a federal hate crime. So if Mangioni gets a sentence with the possibility of being paroled after serving only part of it, then I would consider that there’s an unfair discrepancy in the sentencing in the two cases.

12

Oh, I certainly don’t mean to suggest that every defendant actually receives this idealized treatment of utter fairness and objectivity, and especially one who is indigent and can only get the services of a typically overworked public defender working on their own who is going to be readily overwhelmed by loads of evidence and a massive document review. But a well-heeled and publicity-endowed defendant like Mangioni is getting the defense that he should be legally entitled to, and I’m very confident that the evidence, if as solid as presented in the media, will ensure his conviction in trial even with the outpouring of frustrated public sentiment that he’s some kind of vigilante hero. All defendants deserve that kind of day in court, and few enough get it that complaining about when the system actually works it is “too slow” is missing the point of justice versus summary punishment for the sake of holding someone accountable as quickly as possible.

Stranger

13

This person should be deemed innocent til found guilty.

In all things perfect.
Sorry but the world ain’t perfect.
It’s clear he did it.

He may have had valid complaints. But murder is never the answer.

14

Honestly, Jasmine’s opinion is not surprising. Look at any youtube video where a person is being questioned or refuse a search and there is outrage that how dare a person stands on their rights when it inconvenience the police.

15

If Jasmine has a right to judge Mangione, I think Mangione has an equally valid right to judge Brian Thompson.

Lest it needs to be said, Mangioni had absolutely no right to judge the value of Thompson’s life.

16

It’s almost like you have no idea what the OP is about. Your posts have nothing to do with the topic.

17

I have been selected for jury duty several times in the last 25 years. Fortunately, only one of them was a murder trial, but we were told up front the death penalty was not on the table in that case. My response, if I were asked during jury selection, my opinion of the death penalty is that our justice system in this country is just not good enough issue such a sentence. We’re not even that good at trials that end-up with other, lesser, punishments, as illustrated by the learned opinions and posts in this thread.

18

Well. I have newspaper reports. I’m not watching the news with talking heads spouting shit over and over. Scare-news does not affect me anymore.

Any thinking person knows if some one kills someone they deserve punishment.
Ever how they get there is fine with me.
Do it right.
Let him buy a high powered lawyer.
Find an impartial jury.

Yep. Jail time.

19

This can be said about almost everything she posts on this board.

20

I think I lost 3 INT just reading that post. There goes my bonus.

Stranger