3 strikes? Who came up with this? Same for DMCA thing. Three reports by a troll company and any career on youtube is gone? And three accusations and you're done for? Makes sense if this system for kids to get a time out or smth. Same with people being killed for anything in Texas. They're doing something about population or what?

And then we have even dumber Indian ones. Anything but frontal sex is illegal. 20/10. Women's word is taken over the man's; even if it defies logic. A girl can accuse sexual assault for getting payback for something, her word can land you in prison if someone screws up a DNA test. What happened to equality? One of my professors told me a story about it, and it came mighty close to prison for the guy. Then again, nothing else may probably work. But you gotta admit its still stupid. To top it all off; blasphemy laws from the 1800s FTW!

As a for-profit system, the system managers don't give a crap as long as they get their cut. As for him going to prison, he was convicted. It sucks he was innocent, but it seems the jury thought he was guilty. That's a problem with the court system, not the prison system. They should throw the girl that lied into prison for the same amount of time. Not only did she help convict an innocent man, but helps reinforce the belief that every female that is assaulted is lying.

I hear your frustration and feelings of powerlessness even through this almost intelligible post. Posting in forums is the first step to 'doing something' but it would be better to start with forums dedicated to political change. From there you can meet others, get information and links to sites where your input is reviewed by those in power, join political movements and use your votes to make slow change. Venting in 'safe' forums is just the first step on the road to empowering yourself and feeling like ... yah.... I CAN do something about this. whatever it is.

the biggest hurdle we all have to face is overcoming our own doubts, fears, inertia, and getting out of our own safe routines.


powah to the peeeple!

The problem is mandated sentencing and the three strikes law, both of which had their roots in the 'war on drugs'. Policies such as these compound juror error. Here in New York we recently overturned the infamous 'Rockefeller Drug Laws'. Find out what your state legislature is doing; vote and organize accordingly.

Nevertheless, in a halfway functioning society we have agreed to live under rule of law - which does not include you going over to a guy's house with a knife in your hand and stab him to death because he wouldn't apologize for having failed in his job. Must add it wasn't just his failure alone, accidents like that are a series of failures usually. And I'm not saying I don't empathize with the Russian guy, but self justice must not be tolerated. It can't be tolerated.
It's murder regardless of the background story. Going to someone's house with a knife in your hand is premeditated and I would apply maximum punishment to the murderer, even if I understand him on a personal level. He wanted closure, he wanted a personal apology and didn't get it. But that's how the world is, we don't always get closure and apologies and you can't stab people to death if you don't get it.
You can't stop people from not following the law but you can stop them from ever doing it again - permanently even - but the topic of capital punishment for grave offenses (murder, rape, torture) is another topic for another thread and I'd rather avoid it altogether as it's too polarizing and usually ends in non.constructive trench fights with too many people complaining how quick and painless capital punishment is inhumane but having people sit inside prisons for decades isn't as much (?) and all the talk about how reforming works so wonderfully well. Sure it often does but I'm not willing to take the risk. Some crimes are so heavy that you can't allow the perpetrator to go out on the street again imho.

The big problem is - as this thread says- the rotten justice systems (all over the world not just the US) where innocent people get convicted despite all the "fail safe" mechanisms. There's no bigger tragedy than an unjustly convicted individual, regardless of the severity of the punishment. I'd find a life sentence or even a couple years of incarceration worse than a swiftly carried out and painless death penalty. But it's a sensitive topic and the mere mention of capital punishment is often decried as barbaric and a total no-go etc etc.

It sucks that this happens at times. So how can it be fixed? How can we determine, with 100% accuracy, whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime? Leave out the whole "I don't have the power / money / influence" bit, and do explain how it may be possible to achieve that 100% accuracy. And 100% IS the goal, since we've apparently indicted the entire system based on a single case.

Give even pie-in-the-sky solutions because I'm curious to know what it would take. If it's that we all wear personal digital video cameras, running 24/7, then put that out there. If it's something else, then put that out there, too.

Myself, I can't think of any solution that doesn't absolutely trample the rights of the citizenry as outlined by our Constitution with regard to unreasonable search and seizure, self-incrimination, and others.

Since our government is ineffectual by design... never?

To be honest, speaking as someone who serves jury duty and votes, the legal system would do itself worlds of good by emulating the UK, by making it mandatory that if you're chosen for a jury, the government must match the amount of money the juror would be losing by taking the time off work. At that point, most peoples' objections to being selected would probably disappear. As it is, when I was selected and served for 10 hours, I was given $15. That's not minimum wage, nor were we even fed. The amount of money I would have made had I worked the 8 hour shift I was scheduled for that day? $120. Even if they at least guaranteed state minimum wage for it, I would have been more than happy to accomodate the day, but as it was, that's a lot of money I lost for the "privilege" of participation in our legal system.

This leads me to my second point: patriotism is all well and good, but I'll be blatantly honest, it doesn't pay my bills, nor the bills of anyone else selected by the system to serve. $15 a day doesn't cut it, so people don't act like someone like me is out of order to behave like participation is a major chore. It is. Sitting in an uncomfortable chair for what could sometimes take days to get through is grueling, and it's high time that our government realized this and started compensating registered citizens who would otherwise be interested.

This is just my 2 cents on the matter, take it or leave it.

Can you explain how it does please.Or link some cases or information that supports this. Cause from what I've heard and looked at,it seems more often than not that the powers that be don't support things as much as they should or laws are passed to make it harder for people to help. So if you could provide some evidence that volunteering at homeless shelters,firefighter stations,at elections,police agencies and court systems actually help to make actual changes to the legal system it'd be very much appreciated.

Hopefully I get back to replying in full to your post, as you eloquently address multiple issues that open up some interesting discussions, especially if people are able to discuss the topics calmly(something I struggle to do at times).

Your first sentence(bolded) raises an issue that I have been thinking about of late, namely the notion of the Social Contract: "Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights" It is something that I have always had issue with, namely that I haven't agreed to any contract, and therefore I cannot comprehend the notion of living by laws that:

a/ I have not consented to
b/ I do not agree with
c/ I do not have any power to change
d/ Are used selectively to determine criminal action based upon police 'discretionary powers', and finally
e/ Are applied inequitably based upon power (usually money and connections)

With that said, I see self justice as the only alternative when institutions and their "safeguards" fail to adequately meter out justice. I understand that justice is subjective, and the only person who can truly determine what is a just punishment for a crime is the individual(s) who are the victims of the crime(s). When systems fail, and have continued to fail, what choice is one left with?

"They promise him obedience, while he promises his protection and good government. While he keeps his part of the bargain, they must keep theirs, but if he misgoverns the contract is broken and allegiance is at an end." J. W. Gough, The Social Contract (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936

This may be an archaic quote regarding the Social Contract, but I find it quite appropriate to this topic and the nature of law and governance. The contract that I never agreed to has been broken constantly by those in power, so why should I adhere to it?

Found your guys pedophiles. Go get'em.

Conspiracy of Silence
Johnny Gosch
Jeff Gannon
Boys for Sale
Joris Demmink
The Demmink Affair Compilation: Dutch/International Elite Pedophile Ring Cover-Up

But...but...but that would make the Kama Sutra illegal!

Oh, this thread could go on forever! All it takes is a little research.

Pretty much. The big problem is that most politicians are lawyers or have a background in legal affairs. The judges themselves seem to be OK with all the rules lawyering and lack of actual justice as long as it's defensible on technical grounds.

And then you've got the people that proudly vote for the sorts of asshats that think it's OK to send somebody to prison in spite of inadequate representation because the jury went along with it.