In cases where everyone knows someone is Guilty

[cthulu2016]

Civil rights and due process are safeguards for people who might be innocent.

In a case, like the Boston bombings, where everybody knows the guy is guilty all the hand-wringing ACLU rigmarole is just setting up road-blocks to justice and safety.

At some point we have to wonder about the motives of people who consistently side with the bad-guys against everyone else.


Discuss.

[arcane1]

1. I have yet to see anyone "side with the bad-guys against everyone else"

I must be missing something.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Whatever!

I have never fully understood the troll mentality.

[The Second Stone]

3. Just disgusting

considering civil rights.

[PeaceNikki]

4. and who gets to decide to which cases due process applies?

[jberryhill]

5. Little known footnote to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

[kestrel91316]

6. All defendants are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence. That's our starting point.

His guilt has not been determined in a court of law yet. That is the standard. Public opinion of a person's guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant. As it should be.

You and darkangel really seem like you belong on FR with your lynch mob mentality and attacking people who want laws applied fairly.

[frazzled]

7. Where is there no due process?

The public safety waiver requires adherence to due process:

Voluntariness is the linchpin of the admissibility of any statement obtained as a result of government conduct.43 Thus, statements obtained by the government under the public safety exception cannot be coerced or obtained through tactics that violate fundamental notions of due process.44 Here, it is worth mentioning that prior to the Miranda decision, the only test used to determine the admissibility of statements in federal court was whether the statement was voluntarily made within the requirements of the due process clause.45 This test requires that a court review the "totality of the circumstances" to determine whether the subject's will was overborne by police conduct. If a court finds that the questioning of a subject, even in the presence of a situation involving public safety, violated due process standards, the statement will be suppressed.46

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

Also, the public safety waiver can only be used to question suspect about imminent public safety threats (are there more IEDs out there? Are there co-conspirators who are at large?) After that, for any other types of questions, Miranda kicks in.

[Edim]

8. He killed because he hated.

If you hate you don't respect the victims and side with the 'bad-guy'.

[Politicalboi]

9. Innocent until proven guilty

Unless it's 9/11. All those innocent men at Gitmo are mostly being held on NO evidence. We somehow don't need trials for them. We just claim they are part of 9/11, and lock them away. So who gives a rats ass about this asshole. Until they give us a trial over 9/11, I don't give a fuck.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Hell, let's just bring back lynch mobs so we can have "justice and safety".

Or, we could just call them witches and have "trials" that don't bother with evidence.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Another one? Is this rightwing justice day on du?

[MattBaggins]

12. Drive by yet again?

[Ikonoklast]

13. Right.

[undeterred]

14. Then you should watch the documentary about the Central Park 5.

Everyone knew they were guilty. The problem was they weren't.

[FarCenter]

16. I don't recall there being any videos and pictures of the Central Park 5 raping the jogger?

But there are videos and pictures of the brothers placing the bombs.

[undeterred]

17. There is a person other than the Central Park 5 who confessed to committing the rape.

And there are police who coerced the confessions of the Central Park 5.

[FarCenter]

19. Here, we're not relying on confessions or dubious evidence. Have multiple sources of clear pictures.

It's a totally different situation.

[undeterred]

22. Everthing has to be proved!

There was NO DNA evidence convicting the Central Park 5. Years later another man whose DNA was present in the jogger who was raped actually confessed to the crime. The DNA evidence WAS NOT dubious... The work of the police and the media was shown to be dubious. The Central Park 5 are 5 black and Hispanic teenagers who were framed for a crime they did not commit in NYC in 1989.

How do you really know what is happening until it is proven in court? How do you know where the pictures came from or who they are pictures of? Pictures are a lot less reliable than DNA evidence!

[Blue_In_AK]

21. Or the West Memphis Three

[GeorgeGist]

15. Trash

[ProSense]

18. Damn,

"In a case, like the Boston bombings, where everybody knows the guy is guilty all the hand-wringing ACLU rigmarole is just setting up road-blocks to justice and safety. "

...even the FBI statement says the suspect is "presumed innocent."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022721276

[Blue_In_AK]

20. I disagree.

As one of my very favorite criminal lawyers was fond of saying, if the legal rights of even the worst scumbag are denied, then we are all in danger of losing them.

[ohheckyeah]

23. If everyone knows he is guilty

then getting a conviction, observing all the ACLU rigmarole, shouldn't be a problem, should it?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

24. Apparently, you don't like our Constitution -

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Please note the use of the word "all" in the first prst of the sentance. Not "only people who might be innocent".

You say we know he's guilty. Says who? I haven't seen any footage of them planting the bombs. I haven't seen any evidence that they killed the MIT guard. We are all basing our opinions on information provided to us by media, police spokespersons, and unnamed sources. That is NOT evidence.

And that is why a trial is critical in ALL cases.

[egduj]

25. I don't know he's guilty.

He's probably guilty, but I'm not willing to bet someone's life, or life in prison, on it without a proper judicial proceeding.

[jmg257]

26. No thanks - not worth it. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Everything you say is true, if by "know" you mean genuine omniscience.

However, the degree of certainty available to fallible mortals is not sufficient for it to be true.

[alarimer]

28. This is bullshit

You KNOW? No one KNOWS anything for certain.

Wanting to ensure civil liberties is not siding with the bad guys, you idiot. This might be the single dumbest thing I've read all day. You need a lesson in civics.

Un-fucking-believable.

[pinboy3niner]

29. It looks like the OP author is playing devil's advocate

I could be wrong, but I'd guess he's kicking back with a bowl of popcorn, watching the discussion.

[Yo_Mama]

30. No, they are not

Because actually all the policies and procedures protect not just the innocent but the public - before all these "road-blocks to justice and safety" were erected there were a lot of miscarriages of justice.

It is precisely in cases where there is a ton of evidence (such as apprehension at the scene) that these policies and procedures do not impede a conviction at all. It is in cases where cops really need a confession or a pointer to more evidence that the policies and procedures will sometimes let the guilty go free.

[Uzair]

31. Your attitude is scary

You don't KNOW anybody is guilty. You need to PROVE IT. That requires due process.

[neverforget]

32. Ugh.

[leeroysphitz]

33. Yeah. And it's BULLSHIT that people in Boston got the day off.