Wednesday, November 18, 2009

TV TRIALS

Drama portrayed on TV often seems to be misleading. The long running show Law and Order generally allows the prosecution to "win" its case while, at the same time, showing a rather disturbing aspect of US justice and rules.

There have been multiple instances in which a defendant has subverted the law because of very dubious technicalities; The search warrant was ruled invalid because it did not specify everything that was taken, the criminal was not "properly" told his rights even though the spirit and intent of the requirement had been observed, the police was shown to have prejudices that caused their actions to be questioned thus invalidating key evidence items, defense lawyers who are able to "pick" sympathetic juries or present non legal based defenses, and the list goes on.

Other examples of disconnected or questionable justice decisions stems from the portrayal of people who claim military or "terrorist" sympathies.

We in the US are soon to be faced with real life examples of admitted anti US individuals who, in some cases, have admitted (forget the so called "waterboarding" torture claims) to performing heinous crimes against the US and its people for the purpose of destroying the US being tried in Federal courts and not by Military tribunals. These people being tried have a very good chance of being found either "not guilty" or of being convicted of lesser charges. And, their expected and in my mind, deserved punishment could be much less than desired.

This result is, in my opinion, based solely on POLITICAL considerations and not on the need to deliver a strong rebuke to the enemies of the US. It is my opinion that our Government is wrong and needs to change. It should be noted that the problem , as I see it, is not related to any one political party, but towards the general inability of the government over the last 30 years from providing real protection for its citizens; Although, it seems to be more apparent with the present Administration than with previous ones.

2 Comments:

Blogger JonesGardenBlog said...

For instance. The current circus about to happen in NY. If KSM is appearing in a criminal court wouldn't he need to have been afforded all of the normal considerations of a criminal defendant. For instance, he was arrested, interrogated, and held by military personnel. Was he read his Miranda Rights? Did he have the option to have a lawyer present during his questioning? I can very easily see this going the wrong way.

Bad, bad, bad idea.

11:54 AM  
Blogger Bill Curley said...

Go back a step; Was he arrested or captured? Legally there is a difference. Was he interrogated as a potential criminal or as a terrorist combatant? This may be another "lawyer difference". Was he held or interned by military personnel who may not be "technically" qualified to hold a potential criminal.For a captured terrorist combatant, there is no requirement for a "Miranda" warning, but, for a suspect in a criminal case in the US, it could mean disqualification of the case and then, the justification for holding someone against their will which could cause a "Habeus Corpus (SP?)" hearing. This means that some blind and idiotic judge could order the immediate release of these people either unconditionally or on bail.

6:39 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home