Philosophy Now Forum

This is true yet, not. A government must keep in mind costs of convictions. An extended court case costs time, money and life. Limited courts , investigators, prison space, finances and other personnel bring about the need to negotiate. If courts are tied up trying to prove or disprove each case, many accused would remain in prison awaiting trial for too long of time. This would include the innocent.

bobevenson wrote:This improper judicial proceeding would be abolished overnight by the AEP since it is the function of government to determine guilt, not to accept pleas of guilty in exchange for a possible lighter sentence.

In order to intelligently address the topic, I attempted to find the number of laws on the books in the United States.

Couldn’t find a number, but I suspect it’s big. Judging by the number of people running red lights, and judging by the arrogance of criminal politicians, apparently guilt predominately hinges on getting caught, if then. In fact, many folks gauge the intelligence of politicians (e.g., Bill, Hill, and B.O.) simply by how cleverly they lie.

Odds are good that you can’t drive down to the market, do your shopping and return home to prepare and eat lunch without breaking a law in the United States.

kriswest wrote:This is true yet, not. A government must keep in mind costs of convictions. An extended court case costs time, money and life. Limited courts , investigators, prison space, finances and other personnel bring about the need to negotiate. If courts are tied up trying to prove or disprove each case, many accused would remain in prison awaiting trial for too long of time. This would include the innocent.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. To excuse tyranny by saying it's less expensive is a given.

Each person that commits a crime, misdemeanor or felony requires a number of people to work the case. Would you draft people to work in the court system just to speed things up?

bobevenson wrote:it is the function of government to determine guilt,

In Australia this function is performed by the judiciary.

kriswest wrote:Each person that commits a crime, misdemeanor or felony requires a number of people to work the case. Would you draft people to work in the court system just to speed things up?

No, enough people should be hired to expeditiously do the job, just like any other job.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:it is the function of government to determine guilt,

In Australia this function is performed by the judiciary.

The judiciary is part of the government.

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:it is the function of government to determine guilt,

In Australia this function is performed by the judiciary.

The judiciary is part of the government.

Even though the FBI is likely to bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton, her prosecution is in doubt because she is a high profile Democrat, and the judicial department is controlled by the executive branch, currently headed by a Progressive Democrat, which also neglected prosecution of IRS officials for proven systemic discrimination against Republican organizers.

This would be grounds for impeachment of the Attorney General, if not the President. Not likely to happen, given the recent (7 years) antics of Congress.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying. Hillary is his wife.

Walker wrote:The judicial department is controlled by the executive branch.

Better check out the U.S. Constitution and the three branches of government.

bobevenson wrote:

Walker wrote:The judicial department is controlled by the executive branch.

Better check out the U.S. Constitution and the three branches of government.

Thank you for pointing out my error!

Justice Department … not Judicial Department.

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:it is the function of government to determine guilt,

In Australia this function is performed by the judiciary.

The judiciary is part of the government.

Not in Australia it isn't, Bob. I realise that in the US this is the case but in Australia the judiciary operates independently of government.

bobevenson wrote:This improper judicial proceeding would be abolished overnight by the AEP since it is the function of government to determine guilt, not to accept pleas of guilty in exchange for a possible lighter sentence.

One correction. It is not for government to determine guilt. It is for an independent judiciary to do that. It is for the government to prosecute.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The judiciary is part of the government.

Not in Australia it isn't, Bob. I realise that in the US this is the case but in Australia the judiciary operates independently of government.

"The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, has the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the States, and interprets the Constitution of Australia." -- Wikipedia

Sounds pretty much like the U.S. in my opinion.

bobevenson wrote:

kriswest wrote:Each person that commits a crime, misdemeanor or felony requires a number of people to work the case. Would you draft people to work in the court system just to speed things up?

No, enough people should be hired to expeditiously do the job, just like any other job.

And just how much do you think this will cost us? Federal, state, county, city. And who pays for training?? And just how many people do you think will be interested in such jobs that would do the jobs honestly and professionally?