Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc
The state has huge prosecutory powers, they have the power of the police, and unlimited manpower and budgets compared to even a rich defendent. They should be forced to really prove their case and convince a jury. The defense must use every legal means to disrupt this process. Anything else undermines the system.
|
I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, I have no connection to law enforcement, and I do agree we have the best judicial system in the world... however remember is is incumbent on the prosecution to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And while the police certainly have a lot of manpower, they are also tied to standards that the defense is not... it seems like sometimes evidence is tossed out on the craziest of technicalities (i.e. the police forgot to add AM or PM after the time on the summons, etc)... while good for the defendent, sometimes it means a killer goes free (anyone remember the OJ trial and the evidence that wasn't allowed in court?). Also let's not forget that their "unlimited budgets" are paid for by all of us through our taxes, and when a case is pretty clear-cut, wouldn't you rather have the defendent plead guilty and not have the town/state spending our money to hire high-priced experts and dragging a trial out?
Now of course there my other opinion... in our own town of Hollis a good friend of mine and local farmer is accused of growing weed(s) in addition to his vegetables... in this case I think he wasn't doing anyone else any harm and the police did overstep their bounds and he should defend himself to the max! So there you go, I guess every situation is different and so are opinions, which helps keep life interesting
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc
PIG, I don't mean to belittle your decision and your choice on how you raised your children.
|
You should be thanking my son, he saved you some tax dollars by pleading guilty - he was busted in Hollis
enjoy the lake, we all agree on that! PIG