3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.
Where in the world did you read that?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.
3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.
Where in the world did you read that?
3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.
Where in the world did you read that?
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556]Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books[/ame]
And that's by a liberal, btw.
Where in the world did you read that?
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594032556]Amazon.com: Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (9781594032554): Harvey A. Silverglate: Books[/ame]
And that's by a liberal, btw.
I would NOT even buy every American commits ONE felony a day, and I assume he means adults, as some states codify children under a certain age can not commit crimes, so right there, the title is misleading.
The book is a fallacy, and no such theory exists, impossible.
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?
No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.
He does not even say the "average person".
The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?
it breaks the Constitution PC.
That should end the discussion of that option right there, no?
Unless you think we can get the necessary votes to amend the constitution, taking away this protection from illegal search and seizure?
Care
Actually the exclusionary rule itself is not part of the Constitution so no amendment would be needed. But I agree that it would bad policy to eliminate it.
To improve things:
1) English loser pays rule to limit tort suits.
2) No contingency fee arrangements
3) Redefine what is a felony. Currently by one estimate every American commits three felonies a day. That is an absurd situation.
4) Professional jury system. Or some limit. Currently jurors are people too stupid to get out of it. That has to end.
5) No judge shopping. A case gets assigned and thats it, unless there is some conflct or malfeasance.
OK. So you're just talking out your ass.
Understood.
I don't know the term but MOST western have a law that says if you lose a court battle then you are responsible for the legal costs of BOTH parties. It would cut down on FRIVILOUS lawsuits I can tell you that for SURE!
I would change the exclusionary rule "which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law."
3. All police should be required to have liability insurance for said actions, and should be liable in civil suits.
I think the best way to improve the legal system is simply this: If the judge sentences you to 20 years in prison, you do 20 years. If the judge sentences you to death, you receive that sentence within 30 days. No time off for good behavior. No early paroles because of the crowded conditions or for "good behavior". No tv's, newspapers, books, etc., etc. No nice weight rooms or game rooms. Let's make prison a place that nobody wants to go to. That will help improve the legal system.
I would change the exclusionary rule "which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law."
I would vote to keep it. If they can't prosecute me without evidence obtained legally, they should not, IMO.
3. All police should be required to have liability insurance for said actions, and should be liable in civil suits.
They are potentially liable in civil suits, you just have to overcome the burden of qualified immunity.
it breaks the Constitution PC.
That should end the discussion of that option right there, no?
Unless you think we can get the necessary votes to amend the constitution, taking away this protection from illegal search and seizure?
Care
The question was what might improve the legal system.
If enough folks agreed that there should not be a legal way around evidence
for a guilty party, our Founding Fathers actually installed a way to change
the Constition.
That's why it is the Constution, not the dual-tablets.
"It was a powerful blast, throwing one officer in the station parking lot completely over his patrol car and sending shrapnel for over two city blocks. The bomb fortunately detonated a few minutes early so the destruction was less than it might have been. Still, nine were wounded, one -- Officer Robert Fogarty -- badly enough that he retired from the force on disability, and one, Sergeant Brian McDonnell, 45 year old married father of two, was killed.
...some evidence in the past that could have been used against the Weather Underground was ruled inadmissible ...
As he walked out of the courthouse, Ayers famously said:"Guilty as Hell, Free as a Bird."
American Thinker: Guilty as Hell, Free as a Bird (for now)
you are not making sense....pc
If enough folks agreed that there should not be a legal way around evidence
for a guilty party,
BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW they are GUILTY parties if they hadn't gone to trial yet PC? Are you presuming guilt instead of presuming innocence before the trial and want that changed as well?
Does your victim get to have a say?
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?
No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.
He does not even say the "average person".
The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?
OK. So you're just talking out your ass.
Understood.
I dont know whether what he says is true or not. I do know there are lot of things that are felonies that used to be misdemeanors. And a lot of things that people get charged with are crimes only by the furthest stretch of the imagination.
For example, an acquaintance of mine was charged with creating child porn. Bad, true. But part of the charge made it a federal crime because he used a camera that was made in Japan and imported here.
That is just dumb.
Does your victim get to have a say?
No.
So there it is. I now understand your entire position. It bothers you that protections for the accused sometimes come at the expense of the victim, and sometimes true justice.
I cannot dispute this. It is absolute, 100% truth.
But I still believe deep down in every fiber of my being that it is worth the cost. IMO, the risk of an occasional miscarriage of justice is dwarfed by the risk of localized authoritarian oppression that necessarily accompanies repeal of the 4th Amendment.
Youv'e read the book already so you know how he lays the case out?
No, I never heard of it until today, but as the title states, it is impossible for every adult in the country to commit 3 felonies a day.
He does not even say the "average person".
The title just says 3 felonies a day, but you said very adult commits them, is this what the book actually says?
OK. So you're just talking out your ass.
Understood.
I dont know whether what he says is true or not. I do know there are lot of things that are felonies that used to be misdemeanors. And a lot of things that people get charged with are crimes only by the furthest stretch of the imagination.
For example, an acquaintance of mine was charged with creating child porn. Bad, true. But part of the charge made it a federal crime because he used a camera that was made in Japan and imported here.
That is just dumb.
I think the best way to improve the legal system is simply this: If the judge sentences you to 20 years in prison, you do 20 years. If the judge sentences you to death, you receive that sentence within 30 days. No time off for good behavior. No early paroles because of the crowded conditions or for "good behavior". No tv's, newspapers, books, etc., etc. No nice weight rooms or game rooms. Let's make prison a place that nobody wants to go to. That will help improve the legal system.
Well Gawd knows we don't need any money to build SCHOOLS. Tell me where will the money come from to keep people in prison for the MAX sentence?