Discussions of justice tend to be very intellectual and high-minded. We think of it as one of the most important functions of The State.

However, famous civil rights attorney and law professor Avery Friedman, in commenting on the unexpected acquittal of Caylee Anthony for murdering her daughter, explained the decision by saying "Of course, another jury might have convicted her."

While it may seem obvious, I was floored. I actually hadn't really thought much about that before. Doesn't that comment by Prof. Friedman really mean that there really can be no such thing as justice? For if justice can't be counted on to be flawlessly consistent, is it justice at all or is it just a form of chance?

Tags: Anthony, Avery, Caylee, Friedman, justice

Views: 246

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Justice , and its consequent applications , are imperfect ( as are all human endeavors ) . As a result , miscarriages will now and then occur .

So, in other words, no reason to trust the justice system.

I think the Innocence Project and others have relatively conclusively demonstrated that the error rate is much higher than 1%, at least in capital murder cases.  That's in the U.S., with a relatively robust justice system with lots of rights for the accused, unanimous jury verdict requirements, and multiple appeals. 

If Illinois is typical, perhaps half of all death penalty convictions are wrongful. 

In a move that commanded worldwide attention, on January 31, 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan declared a moratorium on further executions in Illinois pending "the opportunity to review the recommendations of a commission that I will establish."

Stating that the Illinois death penalty system is "fraught with errors," Governor Ryan acknowledged that the release of 13 death row inmates based on findings of innocence had encouraged him to impose the moratorium. "We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system -- 13 people have been exonerated and 12 have been put to death. There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied...I will not approve any more executions in this state until I have the opportunity to review the recommendations of the commission that I will establish," Ryan told Chicago reporters. "I will ask this commission to initiate a review of the death penalty in Illinois," he added. (source)

Now, if this is the result of a process that can result in the death of the accused, what about cases that aren't nearly so serious?

Me? I'll do my best to stay away from a legal system that does such a bad job on its most serious cases, and I have to wonder if the system has anything to do with justice at all. In Illinois, when it came to death penalty cases, their success rate was almost exactly the same as a coin toss.

Personally i am not too  enamored with the American idea of a jury of your peers. The average joe is usually someone who has no real clue what critical thinking is. They probably don't even realize they have any major biases let alone what they are and to top it all off it islikely that nearly their entire concept of how the justice system works comes from TV programes like CSI and law and order.

To put it bluntly it is most likely that atleast 50% of the jury deciding on your trial are the unfortunate combination of being of  below average intelligence  while still thinking they are above average in inteligence.

watch what Neil Degrasse Tyson says about jury duty when he was called for it.

A jury of "peers" consists of a bunch of people who either couldn't get out of it or just have a lot of time on their hands. Actually, a smart person might request try to get tried by a judge rather than a jury. However, that, .too, raises questions of competence and politics.

I think competence is often the biggest issue because the sad fact is that often the most intelligent and competent people in the legal profession gravitate towards private practice as it pays far more than working for the government. 
 
So it is often the people with money who get to walk free regardless of guilt or innocence while those without alot of money are likely to get shafted. 
 
I was actually watching the house of parliament TV channel  a few months back when an enquiry came on about how large international companies were lawfully getting away with paying none  to nexto no taxes in the uk, And while the details where complex it basically came down to the  fact that not only are the most competent people working in private practice but because of their expertise on tax law they where also the people the government called on for advice to make and change tax laws.The foxes where basically being hired to design the security system for the chicken coop and yet people where surprised when the chickens kept on going missing.

Which is worse for the innocent man:

A. To be executed.

B. To be imprisoned for the rest of his life.

Well, one of the arguments against capital punishment that one hears over and over ad nauseam is that "It's a worse punishment for the killer to live out his life than to be executed."

What do you think? Are they wrong?

Well i am relatively certain that if they where giving the choice between life in prison and death most will choose prison.so atleast from their subjective opinion execution will most often be worse.

But then i also do not agree with capital punishment in most situations. For a time in our past capital punishment made sense, when a person was a clear danger to society and we did not have the resources to keep them locked up for life. While now days it is often far more a drain on society to try pass a death sentance for someones crimes. So my  view is we should lock them away from society butmake sure they are as safe and comfortable as reasonably possible, as even if they are simply nothing more than  an evil monster it does not mean we have to sink down to their level. Commiting evil in the name of justice  does not make it one iota less evil

We don't need to "sink down to their level" because their level was taking a life unjustly and without due process.

Just because something is lawful  within a  justice system and happens with due process does not mean it is right. When a woman in Iraq or saudi arabia is sentenced by their justice system and laws to execution for apostasy , after due process ,do you think that makes it ok?

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 0 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 3 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service