The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and [The Right to Plea]
The Ender
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
If anyone's been following the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (which has become increasingly aggravating / insane as more details have come to light), you'll know that he pleaded innocent to all 30 counts against him back in July. Since then there has been a tug-of-war of sorts between the DoJ & Tsarnaev's lawyers about things like their right / not-right to argue against the death penalty, discoveries by investigators that may link Tsarnaev to a triple homicide that occurred in 2011 and a whole clusterfuck involving Tsarnaev's idiot & criminally negligent (in my opinion) friends who tried to cover his tracks and destroy evidence after seeing the first FBI-published photographs of the bombing suspects.
I want to use Tsarnaev's case as a focal point for discussing a larger topic: persons who are guilty of a crime beyond any and all reasonable doubt that just plea 'not guilty'.
I'm going to assume that I'm making an uncontroversial statement when I say that Tsarnaev has 0 chance - none at all - of walking out of a courtroom a free man. No judge or jury in America would (or should) clear him of the charges because the evidence is so outrageously clear that he participated in the bombings and went on a violent rampage with the police in pursuit a few days later.
So, we already know the outcome of the trial (we don't know what penalty he'd necessarily be given, but that's rather besides the point): he'll be given a guilty verdict, 100%, absolutely guaranteed (barring the use of a Stewie Griffin-esque mind control raygun). A trial where you already know the outcome before it even happens in called a kangaroo trial - it's a just a game played out by the state that imitates the structures of justice without necessarily being interested in their uses.
So... why bother? It's a waste of time and, in my opinion, a disservice to the function a courtroom is supposed to actually serve (it's also a waste of money, but I'm not so concerned about that). When we already know that someone is definitely guilty, when you would have to be insane to believe otherwise, why play a game where you pretend that you want to find out whether or not he/she committed the crimes he/she is accused of? What is the purpose of holding that trial aside from just being able to say that a trial was held?
I want to use Tsarnaev's case as a focal point for discussing a larger topic: persons who are guilty of a crime beyond any and all reasonable doubt that just plea 'not guilty'.
I'm going to assume that I'm making an uncontroversial statement when I say that Tsarnaev has 0 chance - none at all - of walking out of a courtroom a free man. No judge or jury in America would (or should) clear him of the charges because the evidence is so outrageously clear that he participated in the bombings and went on a violent rampage with the police in pursuit a few days later.
So, we already know the outcome of the trial (we don't know what penalty he'd necessarily be given, but that's rather besides the point): he'll be given a guilty verdict, 100%, absolutely guaranteed (barring the use of a Stewie Griffin-esque mind control raygun). A trial where you already know the outcome before it even happens in called a kangaroo trial - it's a just a game played out by the state that imitates the structures of justice without necessarily being interested in their uses.
So... why bother? It's a waste of time and, in my opinion, a disservice to the function a courtroom is supposed to actually serve (it's also a waste of money, but I'm not so concerned about that). When we already know that someone is definitely guilty, when you would have to be insane to believe otherwise, why play a game where you pretend that you want to find out whether or not he/she committed the crimes he/she is accused of? What is the purpose of holding that trial aside from just being able to say that a trial was held?
With Love and Courage
0
Posts
There's no way to establish a hard and true threshold for "This guy's totally guilty and doesn't need a trial" that won't, someday, fuck over an innocent.
The function of the courtroom is not to make determinations on interesting cases. The function of a courtroom is to be a public decision of the facts in a way that is as unimpeachable as possible.
It is the other way wherein the disservice to the function of a courtroom lies. When someone is denied the ability to have the facts determined by a jury of their peers is when justice is miscarried. Because it is only with the determination of a jury that we have an unimpeachable right to declare someone guilty.
Absolutely should he retain the right to plead innocent.
So, the importance of the trial is - in essence - stamping the public seal of approval on whatever the verdict is?
He got a trial. Dude got 2 trials in fact, cause the prosecution felt he didn't get a hard enough sentence and appealed. (The Asshole also appealed because he though he was justified in his actions, but more on that later).
It did wonders. We got to expose him as the shitty, narcissist, self-righteous bastard that he is. That he wasn't a part of some grand crusade, but a sad pathetic loser who committed these crimes to make himself feel important.
Then we got to ship him of to jail for the rest of his life and never bother with him again.... cause he got a fair trial.
2 cents worth: Give him is trial.
Now that's not fair. The Cylons literally had a gun to his head.
You can't exist in a democratic society without a fair trial.
Everyone from terrorists, pedophiles, the guy who defends his home, or shoots an innocent kid, all the way to the guy that got a little too drunk and hit a pole all deserve it.
I don't even feel comfortable with the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that the president has powers over. As much as the evidence is stacked against this boy, he still deserves his fair chance. Who knows. Maybe they know something we don't, or have evidence to the contrary.
We start determining people are guilty before they're tried, we might as well just close shop and give up the bill of rights now.
That's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after both the defendant and prosecution have had a chance to tell their sides and prevent their evidence. If guilt is decided before the trial, that's a kangaroo trial.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
not really. the verdict is stamping a seal of approval(or not) on the facts presented at the trial. the importance of the trail is to lay out the facts and evidence of the case for all to see to ensure that there is no impropriety or malice on the part of law enforcement/the judicial system.
you say that the verdict is a foregone conclusion, but is it really such a bad thing to go over everything at least once just to show that all the evidence does indeed stack up?
also while we're at it, if we're just going to skip the trial what about the appeal process? no point allowing him to appeal the verdict if we all know he's guilty right? what about all the others already convicted? we've already decided that they're guilty so surely allowing them to appeal is just a colossal waste of time, money and man power.
EDIT: wow, quite a few posts while i was typing that out.
This is the important difference and distinction.
In theory, were Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to present evidence strong enough to create reasonable doubt - not that I believe it exists, because he's clearly guilty as fuck - but if he and his lawyers presented strong enough evidence, he would / should be acquitted. He's being given the opportunity to argue his best case. The outcome is not predetermined by the court, the outcome in this case is predetermined by the weight of evidence against him.
That is justice.
What would be a mockery of a trial would be not permitting him to enter his plea and argue the best case he and his lawyers can argue. That is a true Kangaroo Court, such as the 'People's Court' of Germany, where people were only permitted to enter a 'not guilty' plea if...well, they weren't allowed to, because OBVIOUSLY they were guilty if they were in court.
They didn't know that (and never found out, either.) Besides, that is, as you said, a possible mitigating factor.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The rule of law is absolutely essential to an egalitarian, democratic society. In order to mete out justice equitably, a set of practices and standards must be met that defines a process by which it is determined whether a violation of law has occurred. Otherwise its prone to arbitrary and capricious whims by office holders, which is more or less the the definition of injustice. A real trial is that process that separates a just and legitimate exercise of police power and tyranny.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No, there are still crazy people that do think Rob Kennedy was killed by persons other than Sirhan.
Okay; suppose that the 'trial' involved Tsarnaev going to his first court appearance, entering his plea, and the judge saying, "Nope. You're guilty. We found your homemade bombs, we found your backpack full of fireworks casings, we have a video of you walking up to a police cruiser and shooting the officer, we have first-hand witnesses including the man who's vehicle you hijacked, we found you bloodied and hiding in a boat after running from the police with a written confession on the side of the boat. You are guilty, son, and you're going to jail,"
Like, in this specific case, that would be wrong? Again, there is zero plausible doubt about any of this.
I understand precedence, and that obviously there will come other cases where the facts seem clear but there might be some shadows of doubt to explore, but that's why I want this specific instance as a focal point: it's a real world example, happening right now, where the facts are no way in doubt. I don't think anyone at all except for Tsarnaev's crazy aunt and anyone who watches the Alex Jones show while wearing a tinfoil hat would dispute them.
How does he know that the defense has no proof of extenuating circumstances that might explain any of that without hearing them out?
Yes, it would be wrong. How is this even a question?
He, like every other accused, has the right to his day in court, and to plead his case.
The idea that you might resolve a case on the basis of "Come on, he is SUPER guilty!" is basically why we have a justice system.
and we know that all(or even just some) of that evidence wasn't planted/forged how exactly?
Yes it would be wrong.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If we develop a method by which jury-less trials could proceed fairly, with necessary checks and balances, then sure we could possibly have a trial system where a judge weighs the facts of each case and makes a verdict. Many countries have criminal justice systems that don't use juries; or only use juries for certain types of cases.
So, yes, in the abstract I think it is possible to have a fair criminal justice system without trial by jury. That system would have to be developed from the ground up, modeled after countries that have already done so.
But that doesn't seem to be what you're asking. You seem to be asking, "Can we carve out an exception for trial by jury in cases where the evidence leading into trial is extraordinarily clear?" Perhaps - but it's up to you to formulate and suggest a system where somebody (who?) determines (how?) whether the evidence is clear enough to justify such exceptions.
Otherwise the exception you propose is capricious and arbitrary.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You don't get to just declare somebody guilty simply because the prosecution has a lot of evidence.
Why skip a trial when you "totes know this dude is guilty, you guys"? What's your compelling reason for nullifying this person's constitutional rights?
Well, he wrote some of it. Some of it he just copy/pasted from Kaczynski.
Look, I certainly see your point... but doesn't everyone already know that he's a shitty, narcissist self-righteous bastard anyway? Not that it won't be funny watching (well, in a depressing way) Tsarnaev ape Alex Jones for his no doubt absurd defense, but I'm not seeing how this serves as more of a highlight than his actions already have.
The trial isn't for his sake, but mine. It confirms that we are a nation of laws, not men.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But who decides if he's automatically guilty or not? How do we prevent this from being abused?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Because that is an insane claim.
I mean, my essential question is, "Why pretend that you don't know?"
I mean, I'm going to guess that you don't have any doubt about his guilt, correct? So why pretend that you do? And why have an institute basically do the same thing?
And the current system already fundamentally operates this way. I posit to you that there is a zero percent chance - no chance at all - that he can walk away a free man from his trial. How is that different from simply assigning him guilt and moving on?
You still haven't explained how we determine when there's a zero percent chance.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In this case it may be an insane claim, but it is not in the abstract an insane claim. We know evidence is planted and/or forged from time to time.
So, again, in your proposed system, who determines whether evidence is forged, and how is that determined?
Because sometimes we totally really know for suresies that somebody is clearly guilty
only it turns out that oops, no they're not
So if you're suggesting a procedural change, you need to show how this procedural change is protected from abuse.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
well i'm convinced!
you said yourself that we're only using this case as an example, we're not limiting the discussion to just this case but to all instances where there is an abundance of corroborating evidence. is it going to be an insane claim every single time? is there no such thing as evidence tampering? if the evidence really is that overwhelming then presenting it to a jury should be no problem.
Do you actually believe that we have wrongfully accused a person in this case, or are you just making that argument for the sake of making the argument?
This is what I'm talking about - people are making arguments on someone's behalf not because they actually think they are innocent, but because... well, I don't know why.
Well, I mean, if I find bombs in your house that match the bomb that was used in an attack, if I find casing for the fireworks that you took the powder out of for the bombs in your backpack, if I see a video of you walking up to a police officer and shooting them dead, if I see dashcam footage of you using a man's hijacked car to run from the police while throwing bombs at them and then talk to the man who you stole the vehicle from and he tells me you confessed to the crime I'm accusing you of, and if I find you having hidden away from the police with your bloody writing on the wall saying that you committed the crime, I call you guilty.
What if exactly that is the criteria? Nothing more, nothing less.
Legal procedures affect all cases, not just the cases in front of our noses.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Any of the things you listed could be faked. Do I get my chance to tell you where I was (and who I was with, to corroborate) when I allegedly committed these crimes?
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
because he has a constitutional right to contest the charges brought against him! what about that don't you understand? the burden of proof is on the state and he is entitled to contest their evidence.
you ask if anyone here honestly believes that he might be innocent, but you refuse to take into account that no one here has seen all the evidence as it will be presented at his trial, nor have they had the benefit of hearing his defence. we all might be 100% sure that guilty, but right now and in other cases like this, there's always a chance that we all might be 100% wrong.
ok so you have all, so what's the problem with presenting this evidence before a jury? why are you so willing to just bypass that crucial part of the justice system? you've been given examples of what will/can be lost if you skip the trial, what do you think we'll gain?