Convicts need a pay raise?

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

No way. Too much room for exploitation.

I can somewhat agree but, it allows the prosecution to exploit the limit set. If my defence is that I needed food so as not to starve (providing that I was in an area where a shelter was not available) then that is my defence. By setting limits on defence then the defendant is set up by law to lose.

It's not a case of being set up to lose. It's a case of not being allowed to cloud the issue ala O.J. Simpson.

Defendants are given great advantages in criminal trials. They need only poke a few holes in the DA's case before it sinks. The DA has to ensure his case is bulletproof. The burden has always been greater on the DA, and therefore the system is very defendent-friendly.

Have you seen some of the ludicrous decisions that would fall under the paradigm you suggest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twinkie_defense

Usually the necessity defense is only allowed when commiting the criminal act prevents a greater harm. A hunger pang is not sufficient.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Defendants are given great advantages in criminal trials. They need only poke a few holes in the DA's case before it sinks. The DA has to ensure his case is bulletproof. The burden has always been greater on the DA, and therefore the system is very defendent-friendly.

That's the way they teach it in law school, because that's the way it is in principle. But anyone who comes out of law school and practices criminal defense law is in for a rude awakening: in practical reality, 95% of the time, in most jurisdictions, the deck is stacked pretty heavily in favor of the prosecution.

[freethefly 6]

So, you're saying that reason is no defence? We have all seen this used to convict women who have killed an abusive spouse. The prosecution would argue that solely because he was beating her every night does not justify her killing him. Argument would then contend that she could had seeked a shelter and a restraining order. Often the abuser will just ignore restraining orders and shelters and continue the harrasment. Simply getting away is easier said than done. In certain cases nessecity out weighs consequence and the nessecity is the defence and should be allowed. In the dwi case I faced in 95 through 96 my defence for being in my car with alcohol (I dranked only 2 from the sixpack and believe that the Paxil anti-depressant had more to do with it than anything) was that I was severly depressed. Depression is not a defence according to the law even though it was depression that put me where I was. If it is not a defence than I have no defence and I am doomed to the will of the prosecution even though the law allows me a chance to defend myself but limits to what extent. Long story short the prosecution wanted 5 years in prison, roughly 4-5000.00 in legal fees and more than a year in court I got 5 years probation and a 10 year revocation. Currently trying to get my lisence back so, back to court and more legal fees. In my view, I should had never been charged in the first place and that the prosecution was greatly out of line to bring me to court concidering all the facts. It has left me somewhat bitter towards the legal system. The prosecution should not have the luxury to dictate what the defendants defence may be.

Oops, spelt luxury wrong but, all is well now.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

The prosecution should not have the luxuary[sic] to dictate what the defendants defence may be.

They don't. Legislatures and Judges do.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

So, you're saying that reason is no defence?

I'm making a narrow point: in most states in the US, the justification of nothing more than "I was hungry" will, more often than not, not be deemed a legally cognizable defense to the charge of theft. (Focus just on that; comparisons to other scenarios will only cloud the analysis.) Whether the judge lets you testify to that is probably within his discretion. If he does, and the jury is sympathetic to you, you may or may not win. But if the judge refuses to let you present that "justification" as a defense, and you're convicted, and you appeal that conviction on the grounds that the judge should have let you present that particular defense, I'd predict that most appellate courts would probably deny your appeal.

PS - Although the DA's office has some discretion on whether or not to charge a person with a certain crime, the prosecution cannot dictate what defense a defendant may present in court - those sort of decisions are made solely by the trial judge.
Edit: ExAFO is also correct - legislatures may also pass statutes restricting certain defenses in criminal cases.

[freethefly 6]

I do understand this as I have spent more than a few days defending myself in court. I also understand that some defences are pure hogwash. I would hope that the judge would see which has merit and which don't. To stay with the starvation defence, if not allowed then there is no defence for stealing, say, a candy bar. It gets very muddy, would you not say.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[pmw515 0]

In Georgia, inmates get paid nothing. But if I was given a choice between working for nothing and being incarcerated 24/7 with nothing else to do, i would work for free.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

In Georgia, inmates get paid nothing.

I'd say they work for "three hots and a cot."

Most of these wastes of space inmates buy crap like ramen, cigs, and kool-aid. I'd call those unnecessary luxuries. I didn't get them in Basic training, so why should criminals be entitled to them??

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

There have been a number of major studies conducted by criminologists which, at a minimum, question the utility of incarceration as an effective crime control policy. The National Academy of Sciences in its two Panels (Deterrent and Incapacitation Effects and Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals”) concluded that there is no systematic evidence that general incapacitation and selective incapacitation has had or could have a major impact on crime rates. Similarly, a 1998 review of “what works” concluded that while the incarceration of offenders who will continue to commit crimes would reduce crime, it also noted that “ . . . the number of crimes prevented by locking up each additional offender declines with diminishing returns as less active and less serious offenders are incarcerated.”

Source

If prisons worked to deter crime, the US should have the lowest crime rates in the world. The US imprisons more people than any other nation in the world, both in terms of absolute numbers (over 2 million, half or more of which are non-violent offenders) and per capita (714 per 100,000 of population).

Being a police state does not seem to reduce crime. Perhaps a different approach would be better.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

In Georgia, inmates get paid nothing.

I'd say they work for "three hots and a cot."

Slaves were given as much. Do you consider them to have been paid laborers?

Quote

Most inmates buy crap like ramen, cigs, and kool-aid. I'd call those unnecessary luxuries. I didn't get them in Basic training, so why should criminals be entitled to them??

It would cost me $50 or more a day to eat as well as I ate in the Army, including during basic training.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!