Attorney-Client privelage unjustly jails man for 26 years

[Rick Lee]

Our penal system had nothing whatsoever to do with rehabilitation and I'm not sure it should even try. My number one rule is to just stay out of trouble, since it's a total crap shoot what happens once you get into the court system. And it's financially ruinous no matter the verdict.

[MRM]

Originally Posted by Dottore

The perverse thing in the US is that an attorney owes his principal duty of care to his client.

Yeah, funny dat. We have this thing in America where the client has the strange idea the lawyer represents him.

However, nothing you say would be different in any other country that follows common law principles. I don't know about Code countries. But in addition to the defects you've already mentioned, code countries don't have a guarenteed right to a jury trial and judges routinely make decisions Americans think should be made by prosecutors. French judges can keep you in jail for what, a year without charges?

Here's an example of how it doesn't matter who the lawyer owes his duty too. American prosecutors already have a duty to justice itself, and not an idividual client. His primary duty is to do justice within the law. Yet the prosecutor in the same position would be equally unable to break confidence. It's not quite the same, but the cop is probably the prosecutor's client, depending on the jurisdiction, and the prosecutor can't disclose what the cop says, any more than a private lawyer could disclose a client's confession. Now the prosecutor could and should dismiss charges if he gets inadmissible information that an innocent man is on trial, but that's different.

I don't think many Americans care about bar associations that routinely find American presidents and members of the administration war criminals. It makes us think those bar associations might have a political agenda. Even Amnesty International doesn't attack the fairness of the American judicial system from the point of view of whether the guilty are convicted and the innocent go free. They don't like capital punishment and see race bias in the system, but they don't claim we lock up the wrong people more than any other country. Because in fact we don't.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by MRM

Even Amnesty International doesn't attack the fairness of the American judicial system from the point of view of whether the guilty are convicted and the innocent go free. They don't like capital punishment and see race bias in the system, but they don't claim we lock up the wrong people more than any other country. Because in fact we don't.

Too bad. Anytime we are on Amnesty's $hitlist, I feel like we're doing the right thing.

[MRM]

Oh, don't worry, someone will quickly spout some Amnesty statistic showing how bad out system is. But when you get down to it, the American justice system convicts the guilty and releases the innocent as well or better than anyone in the world. Amnesty will give us crap about a lot of stuff, but if you look at what they complain about you don't see them complaining about that.

Next time any of our Outside US friends get caught in a Napoleanic Code country with a customs officer taking a dim view to something you have, make sure to assert your right to remain silent, remind them that you're innocent until proven guilty, demand your one call, and a public defender who will object to the search and siezure for lack of probable cause and represent you at your speedy jury trial. Ooops. Those are American rights. How many times has that kid who killed the Halloway girl in Aruba been jailed for questioning without any evidence? And his dad? And his two buddies? Yeah, tell me about the European style of justice. They do stuff like that and they can't even convict the kid?

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by MRM

French judges can keep you in jail for what, a year without charges?

well, they cannot

EU law supersedes the French law

1 year without charges would be an artikel 6 section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights violation

or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that's on it's way...

http://www.echr.coe.int/eng/Press/2000/Jan/Slimane+32%20jud%20epress.htm

i suppose you could compare the EU court in Strasbourg, to the US supreme court

Originally Posted by MRM

How many times has that kid who killed the Halloway girl in Aruba been jailed for questioning without any evidence? And his dad? And his two buddies? Yeah, tell me about the European style of justice. They do stuff like that and they can't even convict the kid?

newsflash , Aruba ain't Europe, it ain't part of the EU

and regarding the kid, he's either a complete moron, or an arrogant criminal genius... is he guilty , i dunno
fact is, the Holloway girl was not found, no witnesses were found, no traces of any violence, so frankly, how could they convict if the douchebag doesn't confess?

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by MRM

Oh, don't worry, someone will quickly spout some Amnesty statistic showing how bad out system is. But when you get down to it, the American justice system convicts the guilty and releases the innocent as well or better than anyone in the world.

You may believe this, but everything I have ever read on the subject tells me this is not correct. I have listened to many debates on this - including debates with American lawyers - who complain about the difficulties of access to the US system, the cost and built in delays etc etc. And having worked as legal counsel in Asia, Europe and the US - I can tell you that the US is the last place that I would want to litigate or be litigated against.

[MRM]

Aruba's system comes from Dutch law and they snatched the kid from European territory. And they snatched and jailed him without access to a lawyer until a judge eventually decided to free him when the "fact is, the Holloway girl was not found, no witnesses were found, no traces of any violence, so frankly, how could they convict if the douchebag doesn't confess?"

American cops couldn't snatch a guy based on the same evidence and they sure as heck couldn't do it half a dozen times and interrogte him without a lawyer, hoping (yes, hoping) that he confesses.

[MRM]

Originally Posted by Dottore

You may believe this, but everything I have ever read on the subject tells me this is not correct. I have listened to many debates on this - including debates with American lawyers - who complain about the difficulties of access to the US system, the cost and built in delays etc etc. And having worked as legal counsel in Asia, Europe and the US - I can tell you that the US is the last place that I would want to litigate or be litigated against.

But whose system would you rather be in if you were wrongfully charged with a crime?

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by MRM

But whose system would you rather be in if you were wrongfully charged with a crime?

definitely not in the US


maybe it's not a good example for wrongfull accusation

but OJ was found innocent in criminal court, then sued in civil court and found guilty

i mean, WTF? either you are guilty, or not
and a criminal court, i would think has higher standards, and would automatically overrule civil court

I can't imagine a case in Belgium where somebody in "assisen"(criminal court), would be found innocent, and then still get convicted in civil court (which over here, would not even have admitted such a case as the criminal court already ruled on the matter)

[MRM]

Sorry, Stjin. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of American justice. It is set up on the premise that the rights of the citizens are better protected by skewing the system to make it hard to convict people, therefore erring on the side of risking guilty people going free rather than accept innocent people being convicted. OJ was acquitted. I don't know how that is evidence that the US system is unfair to the defendant.

The terms guilt and innocence are terms of art. Guilt is determined in criminal court. The question put to the jury is whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether they think he "did it" or not. In civil cases the question is whether the defendant is "liable" or responsible for damages. The burden of proof is only by a preponderance of the evidence - that it is more likely than not - not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason for this is that criminal cases decide punishment by loss of liberty, so the highest burden is required. But civil cases only decide who owes money, so the protections are lower.

So OJ was not found innocent, he was found "not guilty" of a crime. And in the civil suit he was not found "guilty" he was found liable for causing Nicole Simpson's death.

The fact that this is possible in the US and not in the EU more evidence that the US system provides its citizens [I]more[I] rights than other countires, even western Europe.

[svandamme]

then let me rephrase

how could OJ be acquitted of something he was found liable for?

that whole setup just proves there is not one justice, but several parallel justices

i mean, if you're liable for 2 frigging very dead bodies
then i'de say you are automatically very guilty


li·a·ble Audio Help /ˈlaɪəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. legally responsible: You are liable for the damage caused by your action.

How could anybody be legally responsible for 2 murdered corpses and not be guilty if murder??
eg
OJ is liable for the damage done to the bodies
but he's not guilty of killing them??

it's a contradiction in terms for crying out loud..

what did he do them?? he was negligent in some way that caused them to get murdered by accident???


i know it's a bad example, because it's sort of the reverse of the "where would you rather be charged with a crime you didn't commit" , considering everybody considers OJ guilty as sin...
But let's assume i get charged with a crime i didn't commit... in europe , i'de be aquitted if they can't find enough to convict me... and that would be it... but in the US, i still might get done in financially by a civil court...

[widgeon13]

All very eloquent but can we have some examples of "better" more flexible systems? I'm not trying to be my usual cynical self but since you have broached the subject, for example.........

[MRM]

Stijn, the key is that guilt is a criminal concept and relates to whether the state proves you commited a crime. The criminal court finds you guilty and punishes you by taking away your liberty. Punishment is a severe sanction, so the standard for proving guilt is the highest burden of proof - proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that if you have any doubt that is not fanciful or hypothetical and is substantial enough to be "reasonable", the state has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the person doesn't get punished.

In civil court we talk about being liable, or responsible for paying money damages. "Liable"means that you are found to have caused someone else damages and you have to pay the other person money equal to the amount of damages you caused him This is compensatory - it compensates the injured person for his damages. The civil award is not punitive. The civil system doesn't award punitive damages, except in special circumstances. Since the civil court only provides compensation in the form of money, rather than punishment in the form of lost liberty, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.

You can be found liable if the jury finds it more likely than not that you committed the wrong that injured the other party.

So in America you can be found not guilty (not punished) because the state did not prove its case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil court can find by the lower burden of proof that you committed a wrong against the injured party and are responsible for paying money damages to compensate the injured party.

Clear as mud?

[Dottore]

Originally Posted by MRM

Sorry, Stjin. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of American justice. It is set up on the premise that the rights of the citizens are better protected by skewing the system to make it hard to convict people, therefore erring on the side of risking guilty people going free rather than accept innocent people being convicted.

This is itself a curious statement - because the US incarcerates more people than any other nation on earth (on a percentage of population basis) - 5 or 6 times more than the next closest nation. Almost a million people are incarcerated for soft drug violations alone! All of these people have been processed through an overcrowded justice system for a laughable crime. How many of these people do you think had meaningful representation? How many could afford good counsel? And what justice is there in a system where those with the most money can buy the best lawyers and inevitably be acquitted, while those without money get convicted for the same crime?

You say the virtue of the US system is that it makes it harder to convict people who stand wrongly accused but the statistics don't bear this out. Even if the statistics were to bear out this claim - should this be the litmus test of a good justice system?

I would prefer a system that is efficient and fair and to which everyone has equal access regardless of how rich (or not) they might be. I prefer a system were sensible, highly trained judges can make their own inquiries of the accused and witnesses, to a system where bad actors present theatrical cases to judges beholden to their appointees and juries incapable of understanding the law they are supposed to apply and construe.

The whole fecking system stinks in the US - and I have yet to meet anyone (other than those that profit by it) who has anything good to say about it.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by MRM

Stijn, the key is that guilt is a criminal concept and relates to whether the state proves you commited a crime. The criminal court finds you guilty and punishes you by taking away your liberty. Punishment is a severe sanction, so the standard for proving guilt is the highest burden of proof - proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that if you have any doubt that is not fanciful or hypothetical and is substantial enough to be "reasonable", the state has not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the person doesn't get punished.

In civil court we talk about being liable, or responsible for paying money damages. "Liable"means that you are found to have caused someone else damages and you have to pay the other person money equal to the amount of damages you caused him This is compensatory - it compensates the injured person for his damages. The civil award is not punitive. The civil system doesn't award punitive damages, except in special circumstances. Since the civil court only provides compensation in the form of money, rather than punishment in the form of lost liberty, the burden of proof is lower in a civil case.

You can be found liable if the jury finds it more likely than not that you committed the wrong that injured the other party.

So in America you can be found not guilty (not punished) because the state did not prove its case by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but a civil court can find by the lower burden of proof that you committed a wrong against the injured party and are responsible for paying money damages to compensate the injured party.

Clear as mud?

well , it definitely ain't crystal

so in summary
innocent until proven guilty, that's clear
but if after that we still think there is a chance you maybe could have done it, but we can't prove it, and we have a hunch that it's likely you could have,
then we'll make you pay in a way that doesn't involve getting STD's from big bald bad boy who goes by the name of Killer Dawg Johnson

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by MRM

Oh, don't worry, someone will quickly spout some Amnesty statistic showing how bad out system is. But when you get down to it, the American justice system convicts the guilty and releases the innocent as well or better than anyone in the world.

Your continued defense of the criminal injustice system in the US sickens me.

Though you are right about one thing, we do convict better than anyone. To the tune of having 5% of the world's population, and 25% of it's prisoners.

BTW, Massachussetts has the attorney confidence standard i espoused earlier, that standard should be adopted nationwide immediately.

The current system is rife with sheer, utter, injustice.

[MRM]

The US has a higher incarceration rate because its citizens commit crimes at an astonishing rate when compared to our civilized peers - not because our criminal justice system is unfair at sorting out the guilty and innocent. Why it is that America insists on passing laws that its citizens refuse to obey is an unanswered question, yet it is undeniable that they do.

Compare Seatle Washington to Vancouver BC. Very similar communities, very similar demographics. But the American side of the border has several times the drug crime and many times the violent crime. And Seatle is a pretty tame US city.

The US gives better access to the entire judicial system than any other country in the world. We spend billions on public defenders for criminal defendants. We fund the Legal Service Corporation to provide pro bono assistance to civil litigants. We have the contingency fee system for plaintiffs.

Anyone who knows anything about the US system complains that there is too much access to the legal system, not that there isn't enough.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by MRM

American cops couldn't snatch a guy based on the same evidence and they sure as heck couldn't do it half a dozen times

US cops absolutely could arrest and re-arrest this guy, all they need to do is find a 'sympathetic' judge. Who the hell are you trying to BS here?

Originally Posted by MRM

and interrogte him without a lawyer, hoping (yes, hoping) that he confesses.

Bullspit, plain and simple. Prisoners are interrogated without an attorney present thousands of times every day in the US. Both on the scene, and back at the jail. Rarely are a subjects rights read to him either. Oft times, people are arrested without even being advised of the charges. They also often get the motherloving shiit kicked out of them in the process too. If the SWAT team doesn't just kill them outright while kicking in their door because some snooping cop found pot seeds in their trash. If the SWAT team is even at the right address to begin with...

Sell your nonsense somewhere else, what you say in no way represents the day to day reality of dealing with "the man" in an American inner city.

The US is a police state with an utterly horrible injustice system. It wasn't always this way...actually....in reality, it probably always was.

[MRM]

Originally Posted by svandamme

well , it definitely ain't crystal

so in summary
innocent until proven guilty, that's clear
but if after that we still think there is a chance you maybe could have done it, but we can't prove it, and we have a hunch that it's likely you could have,
then we'll make you pay in a way that doesn't involve getting STD's from big bald bad boy who goes by the name of Killer Dawg Johnson

I don't know if this helps clarify things, but the state prosecutes crimes, so it was the state of California that tried to put OJ in prison. It was Nicole Simpson's and Ron Goldman's families that sued OJ for money damages. The state was trying to punish OJ by putting him in jail. The families were trying to be compensated for OJ taking the lives of their son/daughter.

Any murderer could be sued for wrongfull death, its just that usually murderers don't have the money to make it worthwhile and usually they're in jail.

[MRM]

In the US confessions are audiotaped or videotaped or they are inadmissible. Sorry Snipe, but you seem a bit out of touch. The case on that came down a year or so ago.