Is the Justice System Skewed Towards the Defendant?

Question

What is the purpose of the justice system? It's usually symbolised by the balanced scales of justice. Justice is for the victim as well as the defendant. Justice is about fairness. Is part of that not allowing fair vengeance for the victim?

How come many accept driving offences, like drink driving and speeding, are best fought by zero tolerance and severe punishments, yet people argue that more severe crimes are not reduced by punishments?

The justice system is not about certainty, it's about being beyond all reasonable doubt. Should we let 100 murderers go rather than convict one innocent person. Are we sure there is the certainty in the system for us ever to make that choice. It's more down to how rich you are and how good a lawyer you can afford.

Answer 1

Of course the justice system favours defendants. It is totally flawed.

Even before a person gets charged there is a huge bridge to cross - i.e., there needs to be sufficient evidence to do so. From there to court the CPS has to make the decision that there is more than a 50% chance of conviction.

Witnesses are treated appallingly, the Legal Aid system provides the clearly guilty with a defence that they probably never heard of themselves and juries are so out of touch with reality that they don't believe that people believe in such despicable ways.

Even if someone IS convicted, they rarely go to prison until it's too late.

You are absolutely right - better that one innocent person goes to prison than 100 guilty ones go free.

Of course, the more compassionate will disagree with this hypothesis because they put themselves in the position of that one person. Instead, they should put themselves in the position of the innocent victims who fail over and over again to get justice. Very few people care about them.

We shouldn't look to China for an ideal - there quite clearly is NO justice there. Instead, look at Singapore. It has an extremely low crime rate - almost non-existent - because punishment is severe and detection is almost certain.

What we need is a system that (a) makes it highly likely that offenders will get caught (b) makes it 100% certain that they will get convicted and (c) also makes it 100% certain that they will get PUNISHED.

Fixed penalties do, of course, work for drink driving and speeding. They would make a significant difference for other offences too: how about: 3 years 1st burglary, 10 years 2nd and life for a third. 10 years for possession of a firearm. 5 for possession of a knife. Life for murder, rape and any sexual offences involving children. (I do understand that there are different degrees of rape and murder - easy: make 1st degree and 2nd degree, with the life penalty going to the 1st.)

Answer 2

Big big problem is the whole "tried by your peers" from what my brother told me when he did jury service the people retarded. They were
1) too scared to charge old people (from evidence this old guy had touched up two girls, the other jurors were saying, hes an old man hes married he wouldn't do that - freaking scary)
2) would make a decision based on gut instinct without discussing/addressing the evidence.

After that should anything happen in future I would push for court. Past history SHOULD be brought up as flagrant disrespect for the law should be heavily punished.

Need more prisons, I say we go to Developing countries and rent land to build prisons, paying their government every year. We employ local people and services, this would generate foreign currency for the countries, would be a lot cheaper for UK tax payers and also a detterent.

Answer 3

We are only free if the accused have the presumption of innocence.

You should move to china, it's much more the way you like it there. Justice is perfect and EVEYRONE is guilty.

Answer 4

Yes, it is designed too protect the innocent and how would you feel if you where that one inoccent person.

Answer 5

IS THERE ANY LAW ANYWAY IF SO IT A JOKE