Legal system
The criminal justice system, as we know it in the United States is a system but it is anything but just. There are far to many persons in prison who probably should not be there, and by the same token there are also far to many persons walking our streets who probably should be in prison. The famous LA case that involved a former NFL football player is in my opinion an excellent example of this.
The police
The police who investigates serious crimes, especially if the crime is of a particularly heinous nature, will come under extreme pressure from politicians as well as the media and the general public to solve the case, find the suspect, and make an arrest. Because of this pressure the police will often resort to whatever tactics they feel necessary to bring the case to a satisfactory conclusion. This may even result in an innocent person being arrested and charged with the crime, especially if the investigators are having a difficult time finding any other potential suspects. They will arrest someone simply because the investigators feel that the suspect or suspects are probably guilty, or may have a criminal history anyway, and deserve to be locked up. And sometimes even if the evidence doesn't support their theories of guilt they will attempt to manufacture the evidence or even hide evidence that may support the suspects innocence. They do this to protect their own careers. I do believe that the police are not above railroading an innocent person, just to close the case.
Please don't misunderstand, I do believe that most criminal investigations are thorough and the guilty party is ultimately apprehended, arrested and brought to trial. But because of a few bad investigations by rogue police officers the entire system becomes suspect.
The police also use some very unscrupulous tactics to obtain a confession. They will use every trick in the book to get a suspect to make that confession. I do believe the police should not be allowed to lie, use any form of deception or trickery or other manipulations of any nature to obtain a confession. The police use a modified version of the 3rd degree to obtain their confessions. They us psychological torture rather than physical, but the outcome is generally the same. The confessions that are obtained by these means, are suspect in themselves. It has been demonstrated that many of these confessions are false and may have been coerced by the police or are false simply because the suspect became confused and confessed to something they did not do, simply to stop the psychological torture. I also believe that all police interrogations should be videotaped. And as far as a minors are concerned the police should never be allowed to do any interrogations what so ever, without the child's parents or legal guardians and an attorney present.
The prosecutors
The job of the district attorney or prosecutor is to obtain a conviction. Personally I do not believe most prosecutors really care one way or the other whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. All they really want is that conviction. I believe the reason for this is because the prosecutor like the police, comes under extreme pressure from the public and the media to convict the defendant and send him or her to prison. The public generally believes that any person arrested, and charged with a crime, must be guilty, simply because they believe the police cannot and would not make any mistakes, or submit false evidence, or manipulate the evidence. They also believe that the district attorney would never bring an innocent person to trial. They naively believe that these people are looking out for the welfare of the public, when in reality they are looking out for their own careers. And if an innocent person should get caught up in a frenzy for the search for justice and wind up in prison, their attitude is, "Oh well, that's just how our system works, it's not perfect but it is the best system in the world. Perhaps it is, but there is a lotand I do mean a lot of room for improvement. I would much rather see a guilty person walk free than an innocent person being locked up, or worse yet, executed for a crime they did not commit.
I also have to put a lot of the blame on the news media, for this rush to solve the case, bring it to court and put the perpetrator away or in prison.
It is my opinion, there are two primary reasons that lead to an awful lot of innocent persons being arrested and convicted of crimes that they did not commit.
- Pressure from the public and media to solve the case quickly and make an arrest.
- Over zealous and unscrupulous prosecutors who want to make a political name for themselves.
When an innocent person is locked away it does not make our society any safer, the real perpetrator is still out there and able to commit more crime. And it should also make all the citizens a little nervous that their own freedom is in jeopardy, and at the whim of the police and prosecutors, and that any one of us could be arrested, charged, prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison for a crime we did not commit.
The defense
The defense attorneys job is to get the defendant off. Most defense attorneys also do not particularly care whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. All they're really interested in is an acquittal. And for most people without the means or the ability to hire a criminal defense attorney of their own are stuck with a court appointed attorney. Generally speaking these are young lawyers without a lot of experience and don't put on as rigorous of a defense as the defendant may be entitled to. Or if they are an experienced attorney, their hearts really aren't into it, because they feel they are not being adequately compensated for their expertise and time. This is, in my opinion why a lot of the poor and minorities are a lot more apt to be convicted and imprisoned than someone who has money or the means to hire an adequate defense team.
The jury
The jury in most criminal trials are made up of 12 persons from the community. These persons have the life and liberty of the defendant in their hands. Most of these people do not have any idea of the rules of evidence or how the process works in general. They are supposed to decide the guilt or innocence, and perhaps even the defendants life, based on the evidence as presented in court. But how can any jury make an informed decision of this magnitude based on evidence that is not allowed in court for one reason or another, hidden by the prosecuting attorney, or hidden by the defense. All the evidence both for and against the defendant should be put out there for the jury to consider. A fair trial is not possible unless all the evidence is presented in court. And that in my opinion should include evidence gathered even by illegal means and even the lie detector should be admitted.
How is a jury of people who are basically ignorant of the legal system supposed to decide the life, liberty, and perhaps even the death of another human being, when they have no way of knowing who may be perjuring themselves, what evidence may have been kept from them and what experts to believe when both the prosecutors and defense experts can't even agree with each other. The court trial as I see it, has nothing to do with justice or whether a particular defendant is guilty or not, but on whom the jury believes. The prosecutor or the defense. It all boils down to one thing. Who is the best salesman and able to convince the jury of guilt or innocence.
It has also been shown that juries are more apt to acquit women over men. They are more apt to acquit a good looking person over one not so good looking. They believe strongly in eyewitness testimony when this has also been shown to be unreliable. They almost always believe the testimony of police, when it has also been shown that they too will commit perjury to enable a conviction, if they believe the defendant to be guilty.
I also have a problem with a legal system that can compel a citizen to act as a juror under threat of contempt of court charges. The judge gets paid for his or her services, the prosecutor and defense attorneys are also compensated for theirs. The stenographer and bailiff are also compensated. But the jurors are only given a pittance for theirs. Acting as a juror in a high profile criminal case could even have a certain degree of danger. Not only that but involuntary servitude goes against our constitution, but yet the legal system will still attempt to compel an individual to act as a juror. There is one thing that any potential juror who does not wish to participate in our unjust legal system should remember is this. There is such a thing as jury nullification.
Guilty until proven innocent
To my understanding the premise of our legal system is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately I do not believe this to be the case in real life. If you watch any of the television programs such as Cops or Tru TV's inside American jails, you'll notice the police who make these arrests or the jailers who imprison these suspects for trial treat them as anything but innocent. They are manhandled, pushed, shoved, beaten and sometimes even shot. This is especially true of the police who make these arrests, they televise blatant examples of police brutality, but yet I don't hear any public outcries about this brutality, nor do I hear any outcries from the judicial system or from of the politicians who rule this nation. It's almost as if this type of brutality is acceptable, and condoned by our society.
There is one other example of where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. That is in the cases of child molestation, abuse, or any other form of sexual crime the defendant is almost always deemed or believed to be guilty until proven innocent, and even then there is always a shadow of doubt that may follow the accused for the rest of their lives. An accusation of that nature, can and does ruin lives. Yet there is little or no recourse available for the innocent person who has been falsely accused of this type of crime.
The solution
I do believe the entire system needs to be constitutionally reworked to ensure an even fairer trial not only for the defendant but also for society, one that is based on real guilt or innocence. Not one based of who is the better salesman, the defense attorney or prosecutor. And not one based on who is better at manipulating or hiding evidence, and not based solely on testimony by the police or other persons who may have a vested interest in an acquittal or conviction.