Is a court needed?

[rupol2000]

We do not think about this question, but meanwhile it is not as stupid as it seems at first glance.

The crime is not revealed by the court, but by the prosecutor's office. If the event of a crime is established, then the prosecutor's office can itself sentence the criminal to punishment, without any trial, if the punishment is unambiguously prescribed in the law.

 

[occupied]

We do not think about this question, but meanwhile it is not as stupid as it seems at first glance.

The crime is not revealed by the court, but by the prosecutor's office. If the event of a crime is established, then the prosecutor's office can itself sentence the criminal to punishment, without any trial, if the punishment is unambiguously prescribed in the law.

So the accused has no chance to defend themselves? No Jury of their peers? Even shitty autocracies go through the motions of the accused having their day in court. The law must be seen by the citizens to be legitimate or it cannot work.

 

[rupol2000]

So the accused has no chance to defend themselves? No Jury of their peers? Even shitty autocracies go through the motions of the accused having their day in court. The law must be seen by the citizens to be legitimate or it cannot work.

If the event of a crime is revealed, and the punishment is clearly writen, there is no point in discussing anything. If the accused does not agree with the investigation, he should be given the right to an independent investigation. Court is a scam.

 

[rupol2000]

in addition, a good lawyer and corruption affect the court, but justice cannot depend on money

 

[occupied]

If the event of a crime is revealed, and the punishment is clearly writen, there is no point in discussing anything. If the accused does not agree with the investigation, he should be given the right to an independent investigation. Court is a scam.

People will not accept being ruled by arbitrary laws that bind them but do not protect them. It's why even the worst shitholes have courts where they at least go through the motions of letting the accused have a go at defending themselves.

 

[rupol2000]

People will not accept being ruled by arbitrary laws that bind them but do not protect them. It's why even the worst shitholes have courts where they at least go through the motions of letting the accused have a go at defending themselves.

Laws are adopted in a democratic way, by people's choices leaders. There can be no question of the disagreement of the people with the laws.

The courts are a scam, they hinder the protection of the people from the villains

 

[occupied]

Laws are adopted in a democratic way, by people's choices leaders. There can be no question of the disagreement of the people with the laws.

The courts are a scam, they hinder the protection of the people from the villains

Have you ever even heard the term "police state"?

 

[rupol2000]

Have you ever even heard the term "police state"?

the police have nothing to do with it

 

[occupied]

the police have nothing to do with it

Prosecutors are the police. They are tasked with making everything the police do seem legitimate no matter how fucked up or arbitrary.

 

[rupol2000]

Prosecutors are the police. They are tasked with making everything the police do seem legitimate no matter how fucked up or arbitrary.

Don't know. As for Russia, there is a complex structure, the prosecutor's office is a separate institution, and is not directly related to the police.

In the United States, the prosecutor's office is part of the police structure?

In short, the court is not needed, they can decide already at the stage of proving the event of the crime. If the event of the crime is revealed and proven, it is possible to execute without trial. The court makes no sense.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, the courts ARE needed. There are far too many cases in which the prosecutor was wrong. Had it been run the way you want, innocent people would be in jail and the criminals would still be out committing crimes.

Our constitution guarantees our right to a fair trial. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it better than a politician arbitrarily deciding guilt? Hell yes.

 

[rupol2000]

Yes, the courts ARE needed. There are far too many cases in which the prosecutor was wrong. Had it been run the way you want, innocent people would be in jail and the criminals would still be out committing crimes.

Our constitution guarantees our right to a fair trial. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it better than a politician arbitrarily deciding guilt? Hell yes.

Prosecutor's mistakes are due to the vagueness of the law. The law must be unambiguous.

Or the prosecutor is a fool.

This is another problem.

For example, the law says: for rape, the offender is sentenced to death. Suppose the investigation proved the event of rape. It's enough just to execute.

 

[rupol2000]

There may be an incorrectly conducted investigation. But then the question is in an additional independent investigation, what does the court have to do with it?

The court is engaged in the fact that it interprets the law as it pleases, this is fraud. Manipulation of the law in its purest form.

1) The law must have an unambiguous interpretation

2) No courts are needed, because punishment automatically follows from the fact of a crime.

 

[WinterBorn]

Prosecutor's mistakes are due to the vagueness of the law. The law must be unambiguous.

Or the prosecutor is a fool.

This is another problem.

For example, the law says: for rape, the offender is sentenced to death. Suppose the investigation proved the event of rape. It's enough just to execute.

Or suppose the investigation is wrong or misses some key bit of evidence? You can't unexecute someone.

 

[rupol2000]

Or suppose the investigation is wrong or misses some key bit of evidence? You can't unexecute someone.

I said: re-investigation.

 

[Blues Man]

We do not think about this question, but meanwhile it is not as stupid as it seems at first glance.

The crime is not revealed by the court, but by the prosecutor's office. If the event of a crime is established, then the prosecutor's office can itself sentence the criminal to punishment, without any trial, if the punishment is unambiguously prescribed in the law.

Yes we need courts as a check on the police.

The cops gather evidence that evidence must be verified and challenged and that is the purpose of a trial.

Even with the safeguards we have the police and prosecutors still try to hide exculpatory evidence from the courts. Imagine if there were not courts and trials to evaluate the veracity of evidence.

 

[rupol2000]

Yes we need courts as a check on the police.

The cops gather evidence that evidence must be verified and challenged and that is the purpose of a trial.

Even with the safeguards we have the police and prosecutors still try to hide exculpatory evidence from the courts. Imagine if there were not courts and trials to evaluate the veracity of evidence.

This is a lie, the courts do not deal with this. Judges are generally not experts in the field of forensic science and operational search activities.

 

[gipper]

If the event of a crime is revealed, and the punishment is clearly writen, there is no point in discussing anything. If the accused does not agree with the investigation, he should be given the right to an independent investigation. Court is a scam.

What happens when you have a corrupt prosecutor, of which we have many?

 

[BackAgain]

We do not think about this question, but meanwhile it is not as stupid as it seems at first glance.

The crime is not revealed by the court, but by the prosecutor's office. If the event of a crime is established, then the prosecutor's office can itself sentence the criminal to punishment, without any trial, if the punishment is unambiguously prescribed in the law.

No. It’s as stupid as it first appears. We don’t buy the notion that the government is automatically correct. We insulate ourselves with a layer of citizens (the jury) hoping that they can call bullshit on government mistakes but also call a strike a strike.

 

[rupol2000]

What happens when you have a corrupt prosecutor, of which we have many?

1) fight against corruption

2) independent criminal investigation