Media and courts often seem to forge to remind jurors of "innocent verdict unless there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever". Triply so when it's "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!"

'Tis better to let 100 guilty people walk free than imprison even one innocent.

I'm getting serious non sequitur vibes from that sentence.
Kaloyev killed an innocent person because he decided to egotistically exact revenge to satisfy his tormented feelings. No point in trying to shift the blame here, you can "butterfly effect" the whole history of the planet by saying this caused that etc.
According to your logic, the Fine Arts Academy of Vienna in Austria is the cause for World War 2 because they didn't accept Hitler into the Academy. Ok, a rather extreme example but same logic.
I too have failed entrance exams at an art school, did I start World War 3? No, I simply applied to a better art school and went there. Revenge is entirely unproductive and it's certainly not justice.

As mentioned earlier, not saying I would be stronger and act differently than Kaloyev but I would expect no mercy for myself if I did such a despicable thing, and I certainly would not allow anyone to appoint me minister.

Say someone came to your house and suddenly stabbed your wife to death in front of you and your kids because your wife's company screwed up and his family died because of it. I guarantee that you would not say an eight years sentence and 4 years served is appropriate. Also, Kaloyev served only 3 years including remand.

The sentencing itself was a joke. This wasn't manslaughter. Kaloyev brought a knife with him when he went to Nielson's house. If Kaloyev -as he claimed himself- only wanted to "talk", then I'm sorry to inform you that here in Switzerland we're somewhat civilized and don't "talk" with knives.
I believe that Kaloyev mainly wanted an apology, he wanted someone to look at the pictures of his dead family and show compassion and that's understandable, it's also understandable that he got angry when Nielson (the Danish air controller who lived in Switzerland) just dismissed him. But bringing along a knife to such an occasion is not ok. Kaloyev brought a knife and that simple fact makes it rather difficult to rule this as mere manslaughter. He had a motive and brought a deadly weapon. Technically, it was murder, plain and simple. Sure, we can't prove if Kaloyev wanted to kill Nielson or not but you can't compare this to a case where an abused wife finally kills her abusive husband, that's an entirely different thing. More like delayed self defense. In Kaloyev's case, the appropriate sentence would have been murder but our pansy courts apparently aren't capable of appropriate sentences in such cases**

Even Conan the Barbarian is more civilized than Kaloyev: Conan kills the guy who personally killed his mother, he didn't go and knife down a mere unarmed scapegoat stand-in. Because Conan isn't a coward. Yes, I know that Conan is fictional but you get the idea. At least I hope you do.
Kaloyev went after the wrong guy, in the wrong way and there's nothing excusable about his actions. It's pure hypocrisy to say that the law failed Kaloyev as it didn't bring him justice for his dead family and at the same time saying his 3 years (not 4!) in prison were appropriate and didn't fail Nielson's family.
According to your logic, when Nielson's kids grow up they can go and kill one of Kaloyev's subordinates. Seeing as that appears to be the way people there think...

**EDIT: I should blame our legislative system even more than our judicial system because it's the former that allowed the latter to rule Kaloyev's deed as manslaughter instead of murder.

No one ever said that I have to have all the answers. Fair enough. But you said I have to have the answer to this problem, by mocking me for not replying to you with one...
"And yet you refuse to answer how you would make it better. This is about the same point in other discussions where I have started to ignore you because you like to bitch and moan and absolutely ignore any attempt at discussion that doesn't further your ability to blindly do so."

Yeah, I rather have all the monsters free on the street than have innocent people sent to some hellish prison. Because at least this way, the monster isn't our legal system... There are ways to protect yourself and your loved ones from the monsters that roam free on the street but how can you protect yourself from a Salem Witch Trial backed by a powerful government? I know there is corruption in this world and I know corruption can destroy everything. And I know it's impossible to stop corruption 100%. But that guy having to spend 19 years in prison wasn't a victim of corruption. He was a victim of a garbage legal system. We aren't talking about corruption here. Yes, there will always be human error but that doesn't justify what we have now. If it bothers me so much, just become a judge or congressman? How ignorant are you? Do you think just anyone can become a judge or congressman in the year 2014? LOL I'm done debating with you. If you aren't just trolling me, then obviously you are some kind of U.S. legal system fanboy or insanely ignorant. And if you are just insanely ignorant, I don't feel like teaching you everything there is to know about the world. I don't have the time or desire to do such a thing.


Indeed.

You claim that they are salem witch trials and call me ignorant. I think we're about done here. The burden of proof was met. Unfortunately the proof was flawed. Evidence isn't always cut and dry, but when there is enough evidence to convict, there's usually a reason. I'd rather see around 1-2% innocent people convicted than to see some of the horrid people that go free today continue to do so.

The prison system isn't as bad as you make it seem either. Ever spent time in a prison? I have, though not as a ward. I've done a lot of work in prisons here in VA (Sussex State prison, which is a maximum security facility, and Petersburg Low and Medium security federal prisons) as well as many jails. Local jails are generally FAR worse than prison are as far as violent crime and sexual assault. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it is only as likely as it would be if you were walking free, but it isn't some kind of lawless place either. Watch fewer movies, do more actual research.

What proof? The words of some kid? Someone tells a story and the burden of proof was met? And working in a prison and actually being one of it's guests...two different things... What you said is like, a person saying he knows what it's like to be in the military because he works in a military base as a civilian. And yes, there are some nice prisons in the USA but they are not for everyone. And now that you revealed you work in prisons, it's obvious why you are defending the U.S. legal system. You are no different than a fan boy. There is a strong connection between you and the U.S. legal system...like a person and his or her greatest lover... Therefore, me saying anything negative about the U.S. legal system will fill your mind with powerful emotions that force you into a defensive position. So you are incapable of truly debating with someone about the U.S. legal system and have no place in this thread. Unfortunately, I can't kick you out of this thread. But I can call imaginary security to escort you out of this thread. OR maybe you feel I'm saying you are garbage because you work in prisons? No. I'm not saying the people who work with or work closely with the U.S. legal system are garbage... I'm just saying, how things work is garbage. And really I'm saying how things work in court is garbage so I'm not saying the entire U.S. legal system is garbage.

I don't work in prisons. I've done a fair amount of work in them because I'm a contractor. Try harder. I defend the legal system because it works far more than it doesn't. But people like you like to focus on the little things. And they are little. The only emotion you fill me with is bewilderment at your incredible attitude, and maybe some amusement. You're grasping at straws. You can't defeat the argument so you attack the debater. You've imagined a connection between me and the legal system because you have no answers. I can't decide if I enjoy talking to people like you who talk in circles to the point that it's frustrating rather than amusing, or if I don't. I guess for now I must because I keep answering.

EDIT: Nah. You aren't attacking me with your point of view, and in fact we can agree that the legal gymnastics that are allowed to go on in court are indeed humorous... or would be if it weren't sad. I've said it before, that people get off charges on silly technicalities and it's disgusting. It's also bad that innocent people can be railroaded by a good lawyer.

As for the evidence, you don't know what they had or didn't have as evidence for that case. There couldn't be a conviction on the word of a single child. There would have to be corroborative witnesses at the least.

I was just trying to figure you out, that is all. I was trying to find out, why someone like you can be so wrong.
Innocent people being sent to prison is "little things" for you? How narrow minded and cold blooded, you are. I guarantee, you will change your mind the second you become a victim of this legal system. I do know what they had for evidence. People like you, always have to learn the hard way.

"The prosecution’s case was primarily based on Rush’s testimony, although a detective also testified that when arrested Brock made a vague comment that he “made a mistake.”
from this article http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/2858

So the evidence was basically, what he said, what she said blah blah. Just like the Salem Witch Trials... You still disagree? Then I suggest, instead of writing another reply to me, you start doing some research on the Salem Witch Trials.

Is it bad? yes. But generally people wrongfully accused to the point that they can be prosecuted successfully put themselves in bad positions to begin with. I'm not saying it's right to convict them, but it would be very difficult unless the person in question gave them evidence.

If you lead a bad life it's going to catch up with you sooner or later.

And in this case, I'm shocked they could convince a jury of 12 people on the testimony of a child. But there should be a penalty for cases like that, the judge and or prosecutor should not only pay restitution but also serve time themselves for the sentencing and prosecution of a person not guilty of the crime of which he was accused.

But wrong? No. If people want to put themselves in a position to be prosecuted, then that's a problem. The man was already a bad human being of low character. Do you think he could have been convicted of anything if he'd been an upstanding member of society? Criminals are more likely to do bad things, because they already do. The decisions that man made with his life led to him being convicted as certainly as if he'd actually done it. Again. It's a system that will have human error and any system will until you remove the humans.

The whole 'propensity' line of reasoning is legally impermissible in determining guilt, hence why the Federal Rules of Evidence (which most State Rules of Evidence are modeled after) prevent introducing evidence of a character trait of the defendant, including criminal history. The only exceptions are 1.) when dealing with sexual assault, due to the court's determination that sexual offenders have an exceptionally high recidivism rate, 2.) where the defendant offers evidence of their character to show they did not commit the crime, 3.) where a defendant offers evidence of an alleged victim's character trait, the prosecution may introduce evidence of the defendant possessing the same trait, 4.) where the evidence is used to show something other than propensity, such as motive, opportunity, intent, plan, absence of mistake, lack of accident, or identity of the defendant. Even then, Rule 403 allows the court to exclude any evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Do juries do it anyway? It wouldn't surprise me if they did in some cases, even if the bare minimum of character evidence is used and the judge pulls out the most hard hitting jury instructions prior to deliberation to put aside their feelings about the character of the defendant. But my point is that the court does try to ensure that someone isn't convicted just because they have poor character, since the whole point is to try to convict the defendant if they are guilty for the crime they are on trial for. It might now always work because we have absolutely no idea if the rules are anywhere near as effective as preventing the jury from convicting a person for the wrong reasons as we'd like to think they are. Barring some new attempt to try to monitor jury discussions, which has been tried once in the past that I recall (over which there was a massive shitstorm), or somehow engage in systematic polls of juries nationwide about what they considered in deliberation post trial (and hoping that they tell the truth), I don't think that's going to change any time in the near future.

I agree wholeheartedly. You can't ask people to completely dismiss the idea of their gut feeling because it's impossible to do. That doesn't make the legal system flawed in that respect. It isn't a perfect system, and there probably isn't one. Human error is always going to be present until you start letting AI determine the law.

The point isn't that these things are ok or that they should happen, but that they will happen no matter what system is in place because when people are involved, their personal biases will always come into play. It's the exact reason that both the prosecution and defense get to interview and reject jurors. Both sides get to put people favorable to them in the box because no one is completely objective.

The man is a bad human being but most human beings are bad. They just don't break laws like this guy because they are smart enough to know crime doesn't pay, What makes this guy different from the rest is his level of intelligence. Hes not the quickest of cats at the best of times. And people can change so it's not like, once a criminal, always a criminal. But even bad human beings deserve a level of respect from society. Because they are still human beings. The fact that he is "bad" doesn't justify what happened to him. And automatically assuming the guy is a child molester because of a criminal past makes no sense and is just fucked up. Obviously the jury in this case was full of people incapable of doing their duty. They were a bunch of savages who don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. Because civilized people don't send a man to prison because of "feelings". When humans are involved, there will always be human error, of course. But that is why a good system prevents humans from behaving like savage chimps. That is why, a good system prevents people from sending innocent people to prison because of "feelings". So if a system does not prevent savages from sending innocent people to prison, then it is a garbage system. It's as simple as that. The difference between civilized and uncivilized is a society limiting human error as much as possible because human error is savage and evil and a society that doesn't care about human error. And in my book, uncivilized = garbage. And many places in this world, have legal systems that are civilized(not perfect) so if these countries can bring forth into this world such legal systems then so can the USA. It's not like we are retarded. And just like every human being should be constantly trying to improve himself or herself, every country should be constantly trying to improve itself.

We aren't retarded, but our government is broken and corrupt beyond correction. I fear you won't see real improvement without a true rebellion and the government overthrown. Still I don't agree that the system is that bad. And that's where i'll leave it. I made my points, and you yours. We argued, we bickered, we sang. But I'm not entertaining this discussion anymore.

You are right about our government. That is why all I can do is create a thread and complain about our system. That is why all I can do is offer an answer and nothing more. There is no action I can take that will make a difference. I'm just an ant in a world of giants and I doubt that will ever change. But maybe if enough Americans bitch and moan about this, those with power, might listen to us and improve the legal system. And if enough Americans are against this and all join hands, they can become powerful enough to make a difference too...

Yes, we have both made our points and if we continue, we will just start running around in circles. Have a Happy Thanksgiving. :)