tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post113309236887710616..comments2024-03-15T05:45:01.402-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Requiring corroboration for eyewitness testimony might have saved Ruben CantuGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1133215185218577192005-11-28T15:59:00.000-06:002005-11-28T15:59:00.000-06:00Hell, Clayton, even I can't tolerate California li...Hell, Clayton, even I can't tolerate California liberals! :-) I know for damn sure it's not liberals who'd fight your two eyewitness rule, though. <BR/><BR/>I don't know anybody in the world who agrees with me 100% of the time, including (and perhaps especially) my wife. To me (and to the Texas Republicans who helped us pass the snitch corroboration bill) if left and right can agree on a substantive proposal like corroboration, all the things and the world we don't agree on shouldn't stop that from happening. Otherwise, it's D.C.-style gridlock and nothing ever gets done.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1133204735188398912005-11-28T13:05:00.000-06:002005-11-28T13:05:00.000-06:00"That's a terrific idea, and I think Cramer might ..."That's a terrific idea, and I think Cramer might be surprised at what liberals can tolerate."<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but I lived in California. Anything that even remotely smacks of Christianity--even "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or an historical cross in the County of Los Angeles seal--just sends liberals into a tizzy.<BR/><BR/>When liberals stop insisting on same-sex marriage, removing all even slightly vague references to religion from public places, and treating rape as a non-serious crime--well, then we can discuss the idea that liberals don't have an objection to the Bible.Clayton Cramerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03258083387204776812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1133201145450194902005-11-28T12:05:00.000-06:002005-11-28T12:05:00.000-06:00The suggestions put forth in these comments are ex...The suggestions put forth in these comments are excellent. <BR/><BR/>The way a "jury of one's peers" is selected these days is an obviously corrupt way of doing it. <BR/><BR/>"Stacking the deck" is cheating in a card game. It's cheating in jury selection, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1133121479250871222005-11-27T13:57:00.000-06:002005-11-27T13:57:00.000-06:00Add three more things:Fifth: Make everyone in the...Add three more things:<BR/><BR/>Fifth: Make everyone in the courtroom swear an oath, not just the witnesses. <BR/><BR/>Six: The prosecution has the burden of proving guilt but they also have all of the resources to prove it. Doesn't that unfairly undermine the difficulty of the burden? Disproportinate resource allocation unfairly tilts the scales even before the process deciding guilt or innocence starts. Alot of money goes a long way to buying a not guilty verdict. It also buys a guilty one.<BR/><BR/>Seven: Imagine reading the police reports from the Rodney King beating, if his beating hadn't been videotaped. Don't ever let the police police themselves under any circumstances.<BR/><BR/>Restore some of the faith people once had in the administrators of the system: judges, lawyers, and cops; to restore faith in the system itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-1133114151653182292005-11-27T11:55:00.000-06:002005-11-27T11:55:00.000-06:00Four things that would help would restore earlier ...Four things that would help would restore earlier American justice traditions.<BR/><BR/>First, put an end to jury biasing: the first twelve jurors called are the ones who serve. Having both sets of lawyers and the judge work in collusion to rid the jury of undesirables -- people who don't trust judges, lawyers, or cops -- is not safeguarding fairness, it is biasing the jury in favor of the prosecution.<BR/><BR/>Second, restore the original power of the juror to veto. This would require twelve people to agree the prosecution made its case. Any other outcome would be an acquittal (unless all twelve veto, which would make it an exoneration). A hung jury would acquit the defendant and preserve the protection against double jeopardy. (Also, if the defendant is charged with murdering somebody and is acquitted, the prosecution should not be allowed to charge him again with killing the same person under the chargee of manslaughter. Once a case is lost, it is lost forever.<BR/><BR/>Third, when the police buy testimony, as in promising a lighter sentence, a word with the parole officer, or not charging for some crime the witness was arrested for or for what the witness was caught with, all the details of the negotiation should be presented to the jury, and done ahead of the actual testimony, letting jurors judge the taint for themselves.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, in a jury trial, let the jury try the case, not the judge. The jury's decision should be final. Thus no conviction by the judge against the decision of the jury to acquit, no 'mistrial', and no retrial in violation of the guaranteed protection against double jeopardy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com