So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
However, what if it were instead that we accepted a person is "guilty until proven innocent". In this case, we would have to go through every applicable law in the United States and prove that a person has not broken a single one of those laws to be truly innocent. This isn't only unreasonable, but almost impossible to go through every condition necessary to verify that a person is innocent. And with this reasoning, every person in the United States would be classified as "guilty," and we would almost never be able to prove otherwise. This analysis is very similar to how Karl Popper proposes we solve the problem of induction.
It should not matter if the person is rich or poor, very influential in the community or not, you always need to judge a case by the evidence that is shown. A fair and unbiased court system is necessary for the legal system. The role of the court is to correct any injustice, not to compound it. When prejudice and corruption leak into the courts, what recourse do we have for eradicating them from society? Our judges must be stalwarts of integrity because the power to move our country forward or hold our country back often lies in their hands.
People are easily influenced and persuaded by higher authorities. Ralph Waldo Emerson was a key figure in the Transcendentalist movement. This movement promoted ideas of intuition, independence, and inherent goodness in humans and nature. His most famous essay during this time was “Self-Reliance.” Throughout the text he expresses how to avoid conformity set by our society and to follow our own individual path. Henry David Thoreau like Emerson, believed that the government abuses its control especially when it comes down to just and unjust laws.
Thomas Paine wrote the pamphlet Common Sense in 1776, the year in which the American revolution took place. Paine wrote this as a call to the American people, to get them to join in the movement to separate from Great Britain. In 1776, the American colonies were ruled by English monarch King George III, who many viewed as an unfair tyrant who completely disregarded the needs of the colonists, and whose reign was a “...long and violent abuse of power…” Paine agreed, as he believed that the colonists were “...grievously oppressed…” and were not granted adequate representation, nor seen as the British citizens which the colonists believed that they were.Motivated by distaste for the English monarchy, over the treatment of the American colonies,
In Franz Kafka’s “In the Penal Colony,” there is no presumption of innocence whatsoever; there is only presumption. “Innocent until proven guilty.” This presumption of innocence is considered to be the foundation of a civilized criminal justice system, as well as within the fundamental rights of mankind. The Officer says that “guilt is never to be doubted,” and because he was ordained the judge of the penal colony, there is no proper trial or “due process” needed, as all are guilty in the eyes of the one who judges (Kafka, p.198). If the punishments delivered to the guilty were less severe, than there would perhaps be fewer qualms about the system, however the “justice” dispensed by the machine is nowhere near reasonable or humane, dispensing
Frederick II The reading “Frederick II” is about an unusual emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Frederick II was a man of great ability who was infatuated with nature. The biggest contributions of Frederick II were the effects of his battle against the Church. Frederick II began to clash with the church when he announced that he regarded Jesus, and for that matter all the other major religions, to be frauds. This was a radical idea in the middle ages, the Age of Faith.
The Grudge Informant is a case that is easy to look back and pass judgement on since most can agree that the soldiers wife should be punished. H.L.A Hart agrees, but as a legal positivist, he understands that the wife did nothing illegal at the time and cannot be punished for following the law. So, Hart would suggest the only way to legally punish the wife would be to enact a retroactive law that would make conversations between husband and wife confidential therefore making the husbands criticisms of the third reich private and the wifes admission to the gestapo illegal. This demonstrates Hart’s commitment to legal positivism and his opposition to natural law theory because it would set in place a new law that has to be followed while maintaining the legitimacy of the law and
Regardless of what is fair and what is not, the defendant has rights during trial. One of those rights under the 5th Amendment is the right against self incrimination and according to Winegar, the 6th Amendment provides a defendant the ability to testify on one’s behalf (2013). However, lack of testimony from a defendant can cause an interference with the jury or cloud their judgement because they were not previewed to what the defendant has to say. According to Hall, the jury is instructed not to guess or assume guilt because the defendant does not put on a defense. (2015) In my personal opinion, if a defendant chooses to testify I believe it should be conducted during pre trial or before a witness or victim can give their testimony.
Due process is based on the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, the constitutional amendments are to make sure that a person cannot be accused of a crime without a grand jury investigation, they have the right to an attorney and a person should not be deprived of life. For example if a person was being accused of robbery but there was no evidence that this person did the crime he/she would need to be represented by an attorney to plead their innocence than the case would be taken in front of a jury for them to deliberate on whether this person should be found guilty