from here;
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t=legal+system
Over the last couple of months I've noticed quite a few people advocating the sanctity of our jury system.
This is a good thing, it means that folks still believe that the legal system can work as it was intended.
Reality however is that more than 90% of people accused of a crime are sentenced by the prosecutor without ever setting foot in front of a jury.
Our legal system has been twisted and manipulated over the years to the point that if a person accused of a crime tries to exercise his right to a trial by jury he is assured of financial ruin and most likely loss of freedom for the remainder of his life.
Like most issues with government there isn't a simple solution to a complex problem.....Legislators have enacted so many laws over the years that just about anyone anywhere may be brought up on charges.. keep this in mind as I ramble.
Cops........cops decide who is committing what crime, they document the criminal behavior arrest the citizen and detain him while the prosecuting attorney prepares his case in the name of "the people".
Now the prosecutor in collusion with the legislators attach every conceivable breach of law to the indictment. There is a twisted logic in this exercise, first when presented with the indictment the accused is flabbergasted by the potential sentence he is facing......Second if the accused does decide to exert his right to a trial by jury the prosecutor and cops can justify the prosecution by citing the laundry list of violations as proof of criminal behavior.
So we have a person accused of a "crime" imprisoned faced with a list of charges that may legally be brought against him....The jury of "his peers" is no where in sight, in fact the likelihood of the accused speaking to anyone versed in the legality of the charges waged against him for less than $250.00hr is pretty slim.....Sure he can have a court appointed attorney, one who draws his check from the same disbursement officer as the prosecutor and the cops.
The fellow accused of criminal behavior is now faced with some really difficult choices, should he try to "bond out"? If he does, does that mean he has the money to retain competent counsel? Does he try to defend himself against a laundry list of additional charges attached to the actual "crime" either by himself or with a "court appointed attorney"? Or does he acquiesce and accept a "plea-bargain" from the prosecutor?
Due to the structure of the court system most people accused of a crime logically choose to lessen their exposure to the sanctions of a court and forego their right to a jury.
It is due to this process that we have such wonderful things happening like child molesters serving less than 60 months, murders serving less than 84 months while others are serving 240 months for growing pot. People who embezzle millions serve minimal time while others who steal food are sentenced to years.
I don't have any solutions....The constitution grants each of us the right to be judged by a jury of our peers but for heavens sake very few are.
What we have isn't working and obviously more legislation isn't the answer.........Got any ideas?
Connect With Us