Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by JollyRoger, Aug 15, 2014.
I'm dumbfounded. This is what the ballot proposition system is for. Time to pass a law.
Perfect example of why the people deserve a separate "check"...
Indeed! No representation without taxation, wasn't that the ticket?
I mean, time to collect signatures to pass a law by popular referendum to overturn this ruling.
To get the manslaughter conviction, don't you just need to show mens rea for the underlying criminal act that lead to the death?
Is that how California defines manslaughter?
Basically tim's post here on the difficulties of dealing with speeding cases and therefore the prosecution having to go through a different route to try and get the manslaughter conviction:
California has a bunch of degrees of murder, a bunch of degrees of manslaughter, a bunch of degrees of involuntary manslaughter, a bunch of degrees of reckless endangerment leading to fatality...
Basically we have a whole bunch of lawyers whose function is to parse the law into ever smaller pieces while charging three hundred bucks an hour.
California is really into being sustainable, especially the lawyers.
Ever notice that the number one employer of lawyers is government? Lawyers making laws to be parsed by lawyers...isn't that what it's all about?
To get laws passed in your country you need $$$ and connections, not popular support.
California is not a country. We have direct voter initiates subject to popular vote. We pass constitutional amendments with a simple majority.
"government of the people, by the people, for the people". That's the theory anyways.
And the marketing campaign required to get that simple majority is sometimes paid for by a single individual.
Warpus is correct, and ballot initiatives don't change it.
Is it true, then, that the jury would need to be convinced of wilful wrongdoing? Here, that'd be part of voluntary manslaughter, and potentially part of involuntary manslaughter by unlawful act, but not part of involuntary manslaughter by criminal negligence. Dangerous driving causing death is a separate thing, too.
I think it would be about the same here. I would have to do some digging for details. I was just going by the situation in this case...they had this guy for something no matter what, because physical evidence gave them his speed and the results are indisputable. The only thing they accomplish with this trampling of his rights is some sort of step up on the charges.
Which is what makes it doubly bad that they went to the trouble. <entering pure speculation> It could be that the prosecution looked at this guy and saw that he could be easily presented to the jury as a totally heartless jerk who killed this little girl and clearly just could not care less. That makes him the kind of guy that gets juries and judges to lean a little bit so maybe you get away with something a little edgy that you normally wouldn't...and once the precedent has been set in this case you can trample freely through all future cases like this.
The ruling seems more than a little weird to me. I'd expect it to be overturned on federal appeal. Wasn't the whole point of Miranda that the suspect already has rights and has to explicitly waive them?
When I've been on a jury, the instruction is that failure to answer questions cannot be considered, by itself, as evidence of guilt. At the same time, I'd expect that someone other than the suspect can report on the suspect's actions, or lack thereof, as evidence of the suspect's apparent state of mind. And state of mind does have bearing on the differences between negligence, recklessness, and willfulness.
Additionally complicating the actual case would be the possibility of the suspect having a concussion, which would directly affect the suspect's post-crash affect. Any defense attorney worthy of the name should be prepared to raise this as a factor in the defense. And of course there is the simple shock effect, as previously mentioned in the thread. People react to things different ways, and an introspective state is one of the many possible normal reactions to a shocking event.
In the end, I doubt that the issue being appealed had any real bearing on the verdict. Many appeals are directed at technicalities in situations where conviction would be certain even without the questionable element. That's one of the big problems I see with the current remedy system.
I don't think so. I think the point is that the authorities are required to remind the suspect that he has rights, because they would otherwise take advantage of people not thinking about it. Before Miranda the premise was 'the suspect had the right to remain silent and since everyone knows that when he chose to answer questions he implicitly waived that right'. Reality is that not everyone knows that and in the heat of the moment hardly anyone will think of it...so the court ruled that they have to remind you of it and have you waive it or give you the benefit as if you had invoked it.
But the thing about the 'Miranda' rights is that even though the notice starts with 'you have the right to remain silent', the real issue of it is having access to legal advice during questioning. That's the problem here, because the guy sat in the back of a police car for however long, being observed and eventually having those observations used in testimony, and had no access to legal advice...and wasn't really entitled to it because he wasn't being questioned.
They have to remind you of your rights before they can question you, but 'general conversation', or 'providing you shelter after an accident', or any number of other ruses normal courtesies that keep you in contact with them provide the cops with opportunities to observe. You have to make them commit to questioning you, because when they do they have to remind you of your rights. At that point if you demand a lawyer they actually can't use any further observations until you have one, because they have committed and now your interaction with them officially counts as questioning.
Does that work out well enough for you guys?
I was more referring to the fact that it'd make sense to get something passed at the federal level here, so that instead of just 1 state getting out of dodge, you'd cover all states in one stroke. Seems a lot more efficient.
No need. Amendments in place already cover this. We need no more laws about it. We just need to kill all lawyers.
Separate names with a comma.