Page 1 of 3 123>
Topic Options
#112902 - 05/24/17 09:09 PM Due process
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1341
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Don't get me started ... Well, I guess I did get started.

Let's get started . . . on a new thread!

So, anyone and everyone... what do you think of the justice system? What do you particularly like or dislike about it? What would you change?

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I also dislike the practice of plea-bargaining: an extremely unfair arm-twist.

I hear that--but on the other hand, it's simply impractical to bring every case to trial. What would you propose?

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I don't like grand juries where the prosecution gets to have an attorney but the accused doesn't.

I don't see the problem with this for indictment. It would be quite another thing at trial, or at sentencing. But indictment? What would he need a lawyer for?

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I don't like jury selection where attorneys can eliminate ones they don't think they can control.

Peremptory strikes are available to both sides, which can help eliminate biased jurors and ensure the overall jury is as neutral as can reasonably be assured. I think that's a good thing.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
I don't like "contempt of court" if the judge and/or attorneys deserve it.

Not even sure to what you're referring, here?

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
What would you have done in Obama's position?

I don't think that was an appropriate use of Presidential pardoning. Actually I am not gruntled by that power at all, because it can't help but be used preferentially for the high-profile cases: the Bradley Mannings and Patty Hearsts. "Unknown nobodys" need not apply.

I can see point here from the perspective of fairness, but I think of the judicial system as enforcing order as much as it does (if not more than) "fairness." And in that capacity, part of its task is to put on a little dog and pony show to ensure public confidence in the justice system, to mollify them out of trying to take matters into their own hands. The grand gesture of pardoning publicly popular convicts is part of that performance art, IMO. It's not that Manning was any more deserving. It's that his case has a greater impact on social order. The same goes for "making an example of" the one bad guy they were able to catch.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#112904 - 05/25/17 08:58 AM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: V
It's not that Manning was any more deserving. It's that his case has a greater impact on social order.


Precisely, which is why many believe it sets a bad precedent in terms of the levity of his violation of that order.

If our Armed Forces continually see examples of moral objection with leniency in response, what's to stop them from giving away all of our tactics?

Americans walk around feeling 'safe' because they really believe that our military complies. Failure to comply could be revealing crucial information that leaves us wide open to attacks.

The government in England admits they've been lax in their security, lax in their awareness and lax in enforcement which is why a concert venue was easy prey.

Obama undermined our military prowess and continued to show signs of weakness to the world. The Manning situation is just another example of it.

Make no mistake, I don't support the incarceration complex. This is a matter of national security; a military matter handled very badly, in my opinion. It's just bad show.

In other news... Legal Maneuvering is just a game.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#112907 - 05/25/17 02:21 PM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
CanisMachina42 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1556
Loc: Ca
 Quote:
So, anyone and everyone... what do you think of the justice system? What do you particularly like or dislike about it? What would you change?


General thoughts on the legal and prison systems:

It seems to work just fine.

A dual system of meriticracy. If you have the money or status you can kill someone driving drunk and do 30 days for involuntary manslaughter, where as a K-Mart employee with a public defender goes down for vehicular homicide and gets 10-15 years. 

Discrediting. A good lawyer can reduce a truthful witness to inadmissible or unreliable. (ties to the above).

California's (and others) "3 strike laws", and the mandatory minimums for those that keep doing the same shit and getting caught, are a good way for those "2 strike" individuals to become more aware of their actions... as they still do the same shit.

Witch burnings - They still happen, but the pitchforks and torches are forms of media shaming and the stake is the the judge grandstanding for a promotion.

The appellate court - People (especially those on death row) can play at various angles so long as they don't appeal what has already been denied. Its a nice loophole in the name of self preservation.

Resources - There is not enough allocated to housing these individuals. The topic here is rehabilitation vs. detention.  Much of the overcrowding is drug related. Many of these are to weak to quit. As no amount of anything gives these people a chance there needs to be more prisons.

Privatization - Hate it all you want, but inmates gave up their "freedom" anyway. I propose privately run "free range" facilities. Compounds built and maintained like a private military base by a contracted company. A prison commune kept guard by a private military.

Privatization brings its own criticisms.

Human rights: Spare me, they gave up those by being a dumbshit and violating the inescapable social contract. The punishment is for getting caught. The main criticism is that these companies put capital gains ahead of anything else.  Welcome to this world?

Anyway, As long as the mandates of the contract are met people can bitch and moan all they want there is legally nothing "inhumane" happening. That it lacks oversite is idiosyncratic, the arrangements exist in the same way defense contracts do. They are insulated from public inquiry by design.

They are mandated to uphold constitutional guarantees for someone that has lost their freedom and nothing more. Value of the individual is contingent.

I'm sure I have more, but this is it for now.
_________________________
32.6
-117.1
Sea level
11:56 PM July, 1st 2019
Wrote Signature

Top
#112914 - 05/26/17 01:09 AM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
Plea bargaining: it's simply impractical to bring every case to trial. What would you propose?

Let's start with the story of Mrs. Wong, who gave birth to a rather Caucasian-appearing baby, causing her husband to confront the doctor. He answered, "I'll tell you one thing: two Wongs don't make a white."

Threatening someone with a much more expensive defense and harsher sentence unless he accepts a lesser crime for a lesser punishment, is wong. The fact that courts have heavy calendars is also wong. These don't make penalizing an innocent person white, get it?

If the courts cannot take the time to fairly evaluate a case, release the accused on his Constitutional presumption of innocence. If that bothers you, vote to increase court funding, etc.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#112915 - 05/26/17 01:24 AM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I don't see the problem with this for indictment. It would be quite another thing at trial, or at sentencing. But indictment? What would he need a lawyer for?

Two things:

(1) The further "validation" an accusation has, the stronger the presumption of guilt in both the trial system and the media/public opinion. The perception is that the accused has a "pre-trial trial" and the grand jurors agreed that he's guilty. Just consider the phrase "grand jury", which sounds like one more exalted than the trial one. And if the prosecution is deceiving the GJ with false or manufactured "evidence", there is no defense attorney to expose this. The result is a stacked deck for indictment. This is not a white.

(2) Criminal legal defenses are horrendously expensive for the dedendant. Causing an unjustified trial to take place exascerbates the already vast cost of retaining counsel all through the GJ process, even if he can't argue in session. The prosecution has bottomless pockets; the accused may go bankrupt before any actual trial. Again not white.

Fix? Allow discovery, deposition, and open argument at the GJ. Also have the taxpayers pay the accused's legal bills as well as the government's. And I don't mean a token, overworked public defender either.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#112916 - 05/26/17 01:52 AM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
The other Wongs ...

Attorneys shouldn't be able to "dumb down" juries. Unless you have a valid reason for purging a juror, he or she has a right to stay. That means a very high bar for the attorney to overcome: for instance a juror with a historuy of mental illness, or a serious criminal record. I've been kicked off juries the moment the attorney heard "Ph.D.".

As for "contempt of court": Some judges are ethical and honest. Some are corrupt, stupid, biased, and/or bare-faced liars. But you can't call them on any of this in court, or you'll go go the slammer on that alone. At present an attorney can request that a judge recuse himself, but it's the judge's decision. And only in extremes. The judge should be on the same hot seat as the defendant, and should be subject to challenge the moment he acts to deserve it, and then everything should stop until a higher court rules on it [if the judge doesn't self-recuse]. Would this slow things down? Sure. Would it be in the service of white? U betcha.

In case you haven't noticed. I have a nigh-pathological hatred of injustice.

The military justice system - the Uniform Code of Military Justice - is strongly weighted to convict. The convening commander appoints the Board (jury). The military judge is a procedure referee only. The board "votes" the way its senior officer "recommends". The accused is almost always convicted, at least of one or more lesser offenses.

In the early 1980s I was appointed president of a general court-martial board for charges against a recuiting sergeant who was alleged to have misled possible receipts. I learned that both his captain and colonel had "expected" this of him to meet their quotas. He was a black SFC, scared to death, as was his family in the court.

I told the board that we were going to find him 100% innocent, including no bullshit lesser convictions/punishments. When I announced this verdict, both JAG officers were stunned, as was the judge. and the SFC almost fainted and his family collapsed in tears. That was a great day for justice in the U.S. Army. \:\)

I don't know if there was a connection, but that was the last time I was appointed a court martial board president ...
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#112937 - 05/27/17 01:52 PM Re: Due process [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1341
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Threatening someone with a much more expensive defense and harsher sentence unless he accepts a lesser crime for a lesser punishment, is wong. The fact that courts have heavy calendars is also wong. These don't make penalizing an innocent person white, get it?

If he is, in fact, innocent. A scrupulous prosecutor won't even enter into plea bargaining in the first place unless they've got a rock-solid case that they know for certain is going to result in conviction at trial.

The theory behind plea bargaining is that the prosecutor says to the accused: "Look, this is all the evidence we have against you. We both know how this is going to end. If you make my job easier, I'll go a little easier on you." This seems much more reasonable to me than proceeding with the long, drawn out trial as a formality when everyone knows the outcome anyway.

Which is not to say that it always goes that way. People often accept plea bargains because they can't afford bail and want out now, or they can't afford to miss work, or they can't afford to mount a defense, even if they are innocent--and unscrupulous prosecutors take advantage of that. That is a problem, and it should be addressed. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#112939 - 05/27/17 02:50 PM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
A scrupulous prosecutor ...



You've been watching those old Perry Mason TV shows where DA Hamilton Burger never tells a fib and always congratulates Perry for exonerating his client, right?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#112941 - 05/27/17 05:20 PM Re: Due process [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1341
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
A scrupulous prosecutor ...

I consider myself scrupulous.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The further "validation" an accusation has, the stronger the presumption of guilt in both the trial system and the media/public opinion. The perception is that the accused has a "pre-trial trial" and the grand jurors agreed that he's guilty. Just consider the phrase "grand jury", which sounds like one more exalted than the trial one.

Public misperceptions about the meaning and purpose of a procedure warrant overhauling that procedure, or correcting those misperceptions? I say the latter.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
And if the prosecution is deceiving the GJ with false or manufactured "evidence", there is no defense attorney to expose this. The result is a stacked deck for indictment. This is not a white.

If the prosecution is fabricating evidence, they're subject to serious charges. I realize the prosecution is in a great position of power, here, but that also comes with high stakes accountability.

 Quote:
The prosecution has bottomless pockets; the accused may go bankrupt before any actual trial. Again not white.

The prosecution does not have bottomless pockets. A prosecutor who pulls out all the stops over a parking ticket or a case with flimsy evidence is inevitably going to neglect the rest of his docket, and get his ass reamed for waste.

 Quote:
Fix? Allow discovery, deposition, and open argument at the GJ. Also have the taxpayers pay the accused's legal bills as well as the government's. And I don't mean a token, overworked public defender either.

Better fix: Raise the bar for the prosecution. Instead of complicating the proceeding, making the results more contingent on the quality of defense counsel, and wasting everyone's time and resources, filter out shit cases from the get-go.

How? Make objective evidence mandatory to even seek an indictment in the first place.

Good enough to present to a grand jury:

(1) Video footage of who dunnit

(2) Forensic evidence (DNA, fingerprints) that was confirmed a match in a blind test with decoys.

For instance, the fingerprint of the suspect and a few randomly selected fingerprints should have been compared to those recovered at the scene, and the biometrician should not be told which is the suspect. Telling the biometrician which print is the suspect should be charged as tampering with evidence. Only if the biometrician confirms the suspect as a match and excludes the decoys should a match be confirmed. Same for DNA and other physical evidence submitted for scientific match/ analysis.

(3) Eyewitness identification should similarly only be admitted if it was a blind test with decoys based on the eyewitness's description of the suspect, preferably a sequential photo array.

(4) Precise stolen item that was found in the suspect's possession.

Cops are not objective, and their personal testimony should not be considered objective evidence. Leave the cameras rolling and get some footage, Sipowicz.

P.S. Maybe make indictments mandatory before plea deals can even be offered. No indictment, the defendant can walk.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#112944 - 05/27/17 09:53 PM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I consider myself scrupulous.

If you are prosecutor, then you also know that your career advancement is dependent upon convictions you rack up, period. The more cases you lose, the more you're regarded as ineffective, a failure. The people who hire/promote you couldn't care less about your sensitivity to "justice" in the cases you lose in court. And don't sing the old song about "the DA's responsibility is to see justice done, not to win prosecutions". That only worked for Hamilton Burger and similar Hollywood fantasy characters.

Prosecutions will not be just until prosecutors are paid and evaluated the same for cases that they lose, which obviously is never going to happen. Because a jury decides and/or a judge rules, the message sent to your superiors if you lose is simply that you weren't competent or convincing enough, not that "justice overruled you".

Understand that I am not blaming you personally for the system. It is the latter which sucks, and it sucks intentionally. The criminal justice system is designed to convict, not dispassionately evaluate. It's also designed to bankrupt the defense, while the government has unlimited $.

I experienced the federal military and civilian justice system as an innocent victim. I saw prosecutors lie repeatedly in court and manufacture "evidence", and judges who weren't the least interested in either. Defending myself and my wife cost me around $200K and an enormous amount of personal effort for several years. The summary is here, and for the entire story see my book Extreme Prejudice, linked here.

If I hadn't been that intelligent, vigilant, meticulous, and persistent, and had not had $200K to hire attorneys necessary for the court-work, my wife and I would have been "routinely destroyed" - as indeed happened to hundreds of other victims of "Satanic panic" scams who weren't as smart and proactive, and/or couldn't afford competent counsel.

And since this is the 600C, I'll add an additional word of warning: The moment your attacker, whether scam artist or prosecutor or judge, mentions the "S-word", you can kiss "fairness" goodbye. The Great Unwashed out there know "Satanism" only as a synonym for the worst possible kinds of evil, and that includes juries. Once again I survived because I have an exemplary and documented lifelong track record, but it was still a constant, uphill fight. Today, thirty years later, I still have to deal with the residual viciousness.

In other threads here one of my constant points has been: Unless you are 100% serious about being a formal Satanist, such that it is essential to your sense of integrity, don't take on the label. You may think that it's glamorous fun, but the first time you get arrested for anything, or sued, or a divorce or custody action, etc. it will be used to knife you in the back, and it is still a very big knife in today's climate of ignorance and prejudice. So think the "S-word" through very, very seriously.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#112945 - 05/27/17 11:55 PM Re: Due process [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1341
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Michael Aquino
If you are prosecutor, then you also know that your career advancement is dependent upon convictions you rack up, period.

I'm a "quasi-prosecutor." I don't do criminal law, but I am a state attorney and I do often request that people get thrown in jail.

Sorry about being vague--a term of my employment is that I not disclose my employer on any form of social media.

I am evaluated based on a series of goals defined by the state. It is primarily a numbers game, although there are qualitative checks where my supervisors pull random selected cases and check to see if I've crossed my T's.

But you're right that I don't get any extra brownie points for being "fair", and cutting people well-deserved slack is a no-no.

 Quote:
And don't sing the old song about "the DA's responsibility is to see justice done, not to win prosecutions".

I wouldn't--I'm not in the "justice" business. I am in the law enforcement business. When people bitch to me that the law is unjust, I tell them to write their legislator.

My boss did tell me, recently, that I am a starry-eyed "justice" lover. It amuses me, since I'm so much more jaded and cynical than I once was. I used to be a vegan, a Buddhist, a sappy hippy who thought peace and love were the solution to all the world's problems. Then I got burned bad by some assholes who tested my "love heals all" idealism to its breaking point, and here I am today. I don't know that the bleeding heart ever really died, but nowadays my empathy is tempered by self-preserving judgment.

Given your personal history, I'm sure you've seen some pretty gritty stuff. Yet you seem tender hearted and thirsty for justice in spite of it all. I find it intriguing--it seems like something we have in common.

 Quote:
The more cases you lose, the more you're regarded as ineffective, a failure. The people who hire/promote you couldn't care less about your sensitivity to "justice" in the cases you lose in court...Prosecutions will not be just until prosecutors are paid and evaluated the same for cases that they lose, which obviously is never going to happen. Because a jury decides and/or a judge rules, the message sent to your superiors if you lose is simply that you weren't competent or convincing enough, not that "justice overruled you."

You're seeing a binary of "win" and "lose". Of course, prosecutors also have discretion about which cases to pursue. A large part of the job is picking winners. There's "win," there's "lose"--and then there's "fold."

As with Texas Hold Em, don't invest heavily in a weak hole. Folding the losing holes is what ensures there are chips left for the winners. It's as much a contest of wills as it is about the cards, and the flop (the judge) can completely change who has the upper hand.

The substantive law and the laws of evidence are what determine the value of hands-- and in my mind, the bedrock of reform should focus on them. Shucking away junk science and tightening what gets in should be the first step. We have the technology--the law needs to catch up.

 Quote:
Understand that I am not blaming you personally for the system. It is the latter which sucks, and it sucks intentionally. The criminal justice system is designed to convict, not dispassionately evaluate.

Yes and no.

The justice system evolved over time in response to public demand. In the old world it served power primarily, and was tempered as necessary to prevent violent uprisings.

In the new world, the founders designed it to embody their enlightenment ideals, and really did try their best to implement a system to serve justice. Of course they were not without their own shortcomings, and they built off an old world template, but it was meant for justice as they understood it.

Ironically enough, in the new world the exact opposite happened as the old world. Instead of public pressure forcing a bloodthirsty, power-hungry regime to stay its hand, public pressure pushed a system designed to be rather restrained to get more heads rolling.

 Quote:
It's also designed to bankrupt the defense, while the government has unlimited $.

I don't know that it was "designed to" bankrupt the defense. It certainly has that effect. But in every walk of life, money is power. As Canis pointed out, the law is no different.

 Quote:
In other threads here one of my constant points has been: Unless you are 100% serious about being a formal Satanist, such that it is essential to your sense of integrity, don't take on the label.

My sense of integrity is not so strong that I feel compelled to wear it openly. My position is that it's none of anyone's business, save those who are so close to me I'd trust them with my life.

But I wear it, nonetheless. I am dead serious.

My husband in particular presses this point to me. He was raised among those unwashed masses (whereas I grew up comfortably upper-middle class in a liberal city), and is old enough to remember the Satanic Panic (whereas I was a very small child at the time). His warning to me: "Those people you work so passionately to help would kill you if they knew what you were."
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#112948 - 05/28/17 01:25 AM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
If you are in a position to accept or decline assigned prosecutions, that may let you off the ones you dislike, but it also signals to the brass that you haven't got the guts for the tough ones. Again you are unfairly penalized for your ethics to the extent they are misinterpreted as cowardice.

I am familiar with the pretty language on this side of the Pond: presumption of innocence, speedy trial, right to a defense, 5th Amendment, etc. To the extent these function, fine; but the reality is that they don't anymore, if they ever did. Anyone who's caught up in the court system is at the mercy of professional games between judges and attorneys, which he can neither understand nor influence.

The impression I get from you is that you are a professional idealist. I can grok this, since I suffer from the same malady as a military officer. After 40 years I'm still writing righteous prescriptions like MindWar. \:\)

I never paid much attention to the workings of the "justice system" until my wife and I got caught up in it in the 1980s. I still expected investigators, attorneys, and judges to be principled and honest. What I actually saw and experienced was glaringly the opposite - not in just one instance, but all of them. I emerged from the encounter with as much regard for the justice system as I would have for a rabid dog. I actually started keeping a list of all the CID and JAG law violations & violators; I stopped bothering after about 5 single-spaced pages.

To really understand this, I think you may have to wait until you get caught up in it the same way, either criminally or civilly. Not that I am wishing this on you.

As for the S-word: In your profession you are playing with fire. I'm sure you know how un-private the Internet has become, forum screen names notwithstanding. Imagine this scenario: You are now a prosecutor in court and are starting to question the defendants. His first response: "Ms. Greenapple, why have you concealed from the judge and jury that you are a Satanist committed to evil, not justice?"

See what I mean? All of the "disregards" by the judge won't make a bit of difference with the jury.

My situation was different: I didn't "wear my religion on my shoulder", but I was very much on the record about it: My dog tags in Vietnam said "Satanist", and the Security Clearance people and my chain of command were familiar with and cool about it. Nevertheless I was under a constant microscope to reassure this trust, and I accepted that and handled it. As remarked elsewhere on 600C, this meant a much higher ethical standard than that expected of Christians or Jews.

When Chaplain A-T pulled his "SRA" scam, it orgasmed the tabloid media and "SRA" opportunists, but not my chain of command, who knew it was BS from the start. So the Army was annoyed by the sensationalism, but not with me personally.

I don't know how formal your Satanism is - whether you're carrying a CoS card or etc. - and how much your bosses know about it. But if it's formal and they don't know, you're playing with professional fire as in the above scenario. You've invested a lot in your profession, and I think you should punt the S-word, at least until you retire.

My Italian-American Dad had a lot of personal aphorisms, one of which I quote here: "Never fall on your sword in the semi-finals." ;\)
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#112967 - 05/30/17 11:49 AM Re: Due process [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
I'm not convinced this is the only reason to enter into the Plea Bargain phase.

In a trial I participated in, the Commonwealth's Attorney's aim was to dismiss charges with a lesser penalty in favor of those charges with a higher one. Even though those charges were bunk. I was on record as a hostile witness because I didn't agree with the narrative being sold to the jury. I was threatened with contempt for refusing to support that narrative. The CA's tactics weren't working because I wasn't so easily intimidated with the threat of criminal charges. I wasn't there for the CA's case. I was there because I received a subpoena.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#112969 - 05/30/17 03:24 PM Re: Due process [Re: SIN3]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
I'm not convinced this is the only reason to enter into the Plea Bargain phase.

In a trial I participated in, the Commonwealth's Attorney's aim was to dismiss charges with a lesser penalty in favor of those charges with a higher one. Even though those charges were bunk. I was on record as a hostile witness because I didn't agree with the narrative being sold to the jury. I was threatened with contempt for refusing to support that narrative. The CA's tactics weren't working because I wasn't so easily intimidated with the threat of criminal charges. I wasn't there for the CA's case. I was there because I received a subpoena.

Good for you. \:\)

I'll add "hostile witness" to my list of justice-system bullshit. It's nothing more than an attorney/judge trick to prejudice the jury against that witness' testimony. You're either a witness to something or you aren't, and if an attorney doesn't like what you have to say, he/she can refute it with facts or other testimony - but not an ad hominem smear of you.

I also think that any witness should be able to expose an attorney for a stacked-deck question, not be threatened into yes/no responses.

I've also been kicked off more than one jury because I told the questioning attorneys that if either of them failed to ask a material question, or asked it in a way to distort the answer, I wanted to be able to interrupt from the jury box and pursue it until it was fully exposed. In short, I would not vote to convict anyone of anything on a "presented package". Both attorneys couldn't purge me off the jury fast enough.

Again re;ating this thread to 600C generally: One of Anton LaVey's principal motives for the Church of Satan was anti-hypocrisy, and anti-BS generally, That's one of the aspects that made the Church so wonderfully refreshing. I am reminded of one of our earliest rituals, "The Madness of Andelsprutz". It's one of the Appendices in my The Church of Satan, but let's celebrate it here:

Der Wahnsinn von Andelsprutz
(The Madness of Andelsprutz) *
- by Anton Szandor LaVey, 1968-1969

Ten minutes of darkness precede the ritual, during which time the music will consist of dissonances played on the organ with eccentric rhythmic backing. During the entire ceremony a 10,000-cycle B.C.U. will be activated, and there will be short periods of silence, allowing the B.C.U. to be heard, along with the sound of a flute piping a monotonous melody, accompanied by strokes on the gong, played softly. The usual complement of ritual participants will be present, having taken their proper places in the darkness.

The standard opening invocation is given, with the Infernal Names, Benediction, presentation of the Chalice, etc. The candles are lighted in the usual manner. Next follows the reading of the 17th Enochian Key and then of the opening litany (Cassilda’s Song from Robert W. Chambers’ The King in Yellow):

 Originally Posted By: Robert W. Chambers, The King in Yellow
Along the shore the cloud waves break,
The twin suns sink behind the lake,
The shadows lengthen
In Carcosa.

Strange is the night where black stars rise,
And strange moons circle through the skies,
But stranger still is
Lost Carcosa.

Songs that the Hyades shall sing,
Where flap the tatters of the King,
Must die unheard in
Dim Carcosa.

Song of my soul, my voice is dead,
Die though, unsung, as tears unshed
Shall dry and die in
Lost Carcosa.

The Game is proclaimed. Herr Doktor Andelsprutz is brought into the chamber. He is the head of the lunatic asylum in which the Game is held. He is crazier than any of the inmates, hence he is qualified to pass judgment on their respective sanity. The Doktor’s appearance is accompanied by the incorporation of a high-frequency oscillator which is quite audible. The oscillator sounds throughout this entire portion of the ritual. Andelsprutz is wild-eyed and clad in a tightly-strapped straitjacket. He announces himself audaciously upon entering the chamber. He is seated in an austere, straight-backed chair and faces the congregation. A Janus-figure takes its place immediately behind him and turns periodically during this part of the ritual, exposing first one face and then the other to the congregation. One face depicts a voluptuary with a lewd, brazen expression. The other face is that of a debauched old man.

Andelsprutz announces that he has appeared before his peers and his patients in order that he may ascertain who is to be his emissary - who will go into the world of lunatics and guide them in accordance with the will of Satan. The person who is chosen must be sufficiently mad to deal with the follies of the masses. He must be material for a great leader or outrageous hero and sympathetically insane enough for the identification necessary for the multitudes.
Andelsprutz begins the interrogation by giving audience to his peers, the staff (the participants in the ceremony). He then moves on to the patients (the congregation). He is arbitrary to the fullest degree, establishing no set standard of insanity or folly. He criticizes, praises, studies, analyzes, and makes suggestions - all without rhyme or reason. He becomes angry and childish at times, stamping his feet and shouting. At other times he becomes morose and sullen, appearing to not even hear his audience. He may coo and babble, breaking into a falsetto crooning while smiling beatifically. He might change voices as though he were carrying on a three-way conversation with the person standing before him. He calls forth the members of the congregation as he sees fit and, after all he wishes to question have been heard, arrives at his decision - based solely upon his whim.

Herr Doktor Andelsprutz makes his proclamation and grandiosely announces who will be capable of doing the Devil’s work. The chosen one is asked to make a statement. Then the officiating Priest, representing His Infernal Majesty, presents the emissary with a battered suitcase which contains the articles which will be needed in his work. The Priest opens the valise and removes the articles contained therein individually, explaining their purpose to all present. The contents of the case are revealed to be:

• Books on occult subjects (astrology, card reading, spiritualism, flying saucers, witchcraft, etc.) for the new believers.
• A Holy Bible for the vanishing race of old believers.
• A severed human head for the sensation-seekers.
• A harmless bomb for the revolutionary.
• A vial of drugs for the disenchanted non-materialist.
• A dehydrated android for the sex-starved.
• A portfolio of peace talks to inspire trust.
• A pistol to protect man from other men.
• A microscope with which to detect imperfections.
• A spray can of black paint with which to cover up any inconvenient imperfections.
• A mirror in which to gaze, to be certain of presenting the proper image for the occasion.
• Birth control pills for those whose only attributes are their sex organs.
• A book of threats, doomsdays, and convenient crises with which to retain man’s need for misery.
• A praise machine which will automatically tell anyone what he wishes to hear.
• A Satanic Bible for those who would appear to be likely candidates for the asylum.

The Priest then utters the final proclamation:

Omnipotens eterne Satanas, spes unica mundi!
Qui Infernum fabricator ades, qui conditor orbis:
Tu populi memor esto tui! sic mitis ab alto
Prospice, ne gressum faciat, ubi regnat Erinis,
Imperat Allecto, leges dictante Megera;
Sed potius virtute tui, quem diligis, huius
Cæsaris insignis Satanas, infame ministra,
Ut valeat ductore pio per amena virecta
Imperium Satanas semper nemorum sedesque beatas
Ad latices intrare infame, ubi semina vite
Infernis animantur aquis et fonte Superno
Letificata seges spinas mundatur ademptis,
Ut messis queat esse Satanæ benedicte future
Maxima centenum per horrea fructum.

___________________________________________

* MA: This ritual takes its title from Lord Dunsany’s fantasy story of the same name, but otherwise has nothing in common with it. In the Dunsany story, Andelsprutz is not a person, but a city whose soul abandons it, leaving the city itself merely a lifeless residence for human beings. An obvious inspiration for this ritual’s contents is the German Expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, in which the keeper of the asylum is ultimately revealed to be himself insane.

Top
#112976 - 05/31/17 12:04 PM Re: Due process [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
 Originally Posted By: MA
I also think that any witness should be able to expose an attorney for a stacked-deck question, not be threatened into yes/no responses.


The judge was also very frustrated because that's precisely what I did. Even though the jury was ordered to strike my statements from the record, they heard them.

In no uncertain terms did I tell them that the CA's tactics were to keep asking the same question in a number of ways until I gave a specific answer. One he would not get because it didn't happen, that he was looking for the Win, not the facts.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page 1 of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.006 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.