Five minutes of hate news

[bintananth]

I'm not blaming them; it's the prosecutor I'm holding accountable here. They're the one who took advantage of the situation to pad out their resume with another easy conviction; and are basically the perfect example of what's wrong with our legal system.

One I recall is where a 12yr old boy and 13yr old girl were both charged with Statutory Rape as adults because the girl was pregnant and the boy was the father.

IIRC, the Judges and Juries hands were kinda tied by the laws as written. The State Governer (I forget which state, it was years ago) had to step in and use his powers to say "this ain't right" and fix it with pardons.

 

[What's the sitch?]

Whats the point of judges if they just end up doing "laws as written" excuses? Can they just be replaced by coin operated fortune teller like devices?

I am not against them ruling like that, but then why are they there? Are they actually judging anything? Judging the acting performance of the various characters of the trial? Making sure they stay on script?

 

[LordsFire]

Whats the point of judges if they just end up doing "laws as written" excuses? Can they just be replaced by coin operated fortune teller like devices?

I am not against them ruling like that, but then why are they there? Are they actually judging anything? Judging the acting performance of the various characters of the trial? Making sure they stay on script?

The Judge's role is:

1: Upholding and enforcing the law, pretty much exactly as you said. In the courtroom, the Judge says 'this is the law,' and if it's not a jury trial, he also says 'You broke it and here's how. Prison/Fine for you.'
2: Interpreting the law in complicated and edge cases. Laws are not perfectly written, weird and wacky circumstances happen, and you need someone who is going to adapt things to handle those actual circumstances.

Someone who has better knowledge of the history of legal systems will probably tell you I'm grossly wrong on the details, but the thing to keep in mind is that the Judge is basically 'the king of the courtroom,' but it being a legal system descended from Britain, the king is also bound by the law.

Judges are, essentially, descended from magistrates and/or governors. Magistrates and governors were directly appointed by the king, and specifically enforced the king's justice.

Which means that it is descended from the time and place where you would seek justice by literally taking your case in front of the local noble, or the king, arguing your case, and the king would pass down his judgement.

Because we live in a legal system that (at least in theory) separates judicial and legislative powers, that means this 'sovereign of the courtroom' has only one purpose to fulfill with that power, and that is to enforce the law.

So yes, the judge's job is literally just to see to it that the law is carried out. Someone has to be doing it, and the judge is one of the key people in that process.

 

[Jormungandr]

One I recall is where a 12yr old boy and 13yr old girl were both charged with Statutory Rape as adults because the girl was pregnant and the boy was the father.

IIRC, the Judges and Juries hands were kinda tied by the laws as written. The State Governer (I forget which state, it was years ago) had to step in and use his powers to say "this ain't right" and fix it with pardons.

A lot of America's laws need a drastic amount of revision, especially in regards to anything related to sex. They're not only archaic but barbatic -- trouble is, there's no doubt in my mind that government on both sides would try to use said revisions as an opportunity to push their own bullshit agendas (especially the Left -- we know how fucking crazy the Left is with the current insanity in Western society).

Did you know that, in some states, if you're caught pissing in an alley which is a few blocks away from a school, you're automatically thrown on the sex offenders' register? Even if you're the sole person in several blocks' radius?

So, have a night out, get pissed, have a piss, get labeled a sex offender. Joy.

It's so bad that even American media parodies it a lot: for example, in CSI: Las Vegas, Catherine Willows (a former "showgirl", if you know what I mean) kept hounding this guy during a case for being a "sex offender" when all he did was piss up a wall while drunk (a school, closed at the time, was two blocks away), and it basically ruined his life.

IIRC, even other characters called her out on being such a complete bitch.

Anyway, in the UK, especially up North and in London, getting pissed and having a piss in an alley is practically a national pastime for a lot of people, haha.

Funniest shit was when a guy pissed up the wall of a police station, right below a window where a copper was doing some paperwork: said copper stared in utter disbelief for a few moments before he stood up.

He went outside, gave him a mop, and ordered him to clean it off before letting him off with a warning.

 

[Abhorsen]

Whats the point of judges if they just end up doing "laws as written" excuses? Can they just be replaced by coin operated fortune teller like devices?

I am not against them ruling like that, but then why are they there? Are they actually judging anything? Judging the acting performance of the various characters of the trial? Making sure they stay on script?

Yeah, this is the prosecutor's/cop's job to use discretion. The judge doesn't get any until sentencing, and there he or she has limits. The issue is everything @LordsFire said, plus that we are a common law system, so making an exception is making new precedent which could be have huge consequences. Bad cases make bad precedent, and that has real world consequences also.

 

[mrttao]

There are countless examples of judges legislating from the bench or otherwise exercising their enormous amount of power.
The main issue really is the what and when.

Liberal judges constantly spew out shit and make a mockery of the law as they try their hardest to fuck over the people.
While conservative judges fuck us over with over zealous interpretation of the laws, but only when it hurts us.
Honestly we need more judges that are not brain damaged. but where would we even find them?

 

[bintananth]

There are countless examples of judges legislating from the bench or otherwise exercising their enormous amount of power.

The main job of a judge in a common law system, like ours, is to say "here's what the law says", act as a referee, and rule accordingly. It's the jury's job to evaluate the facts and return the verdict.

 

[Typhonis]

So would the young lady be allowed to appeal her sentence since she was not offered council when the police were talking to her?

 

[Abhorsen]

So would the young lady be allowed to appeal her sentence since she was not offered council when the police were talking to her?

Iowa has a stupid ass law for minors where a parent or lawyer is acceptable, and likely either her or the parent waved such a right.

 

[Zachowon]

A lot of America's laws need a drastic amount of revision, especially in regards to anything related to sex. They're not only archaic but barbatic -- trouble is, there's no doubt in my mind that government on both sides would try to use said revisions as an opportunity to push their own bullshit agendas (especially the Left -- we know how fucking crazy the Left is with the current insanity in Western society).

Did you know that, in some states, if you're caught pissing in an alley which is a few blocks away from a school, you're automatically thrown on the sex offenders' register? Even if you're the sole person in several blocks' radius?

So, have a night out, get pissed, have a piss, get labeled a sex offender. Joy.

It's so bad that even American media parodies it a lot: for example, in CSI: Las Vegas, Catherine Willows (a former "showgirl", if you know what I mean) kept hounding this guy during a case for being a "sex offender" when all he did was piss up a wall while drunk (a school, closed at the time, was two blocks away), and it basically ruined his life.

IIRC, even other characters called her out on being such a complete bitch.

Anyway, in the UK, especially up North and in London, getting pissed and having a piss in an alley is practically a national pastime for a lot of people, haha.

Funniest shit was when a guy pissed up the wall of a police station, right below a window where a copper was doing some paperwork: said copper stared in utter disbelief for a few moments before he stood up.

He went outside, gave him a mop, and ordered him to clean it off before letting him off with a warning.

You are breaking multiple laws depending on state.
Public intoxication, public urination, disorderly conduct is that in some states.
So yeah, depends on state.
You cant piss in the street anyway..

 

[bintananth]

Iowa has a stupid ass law for minors where a parent or lawyer is acceptable, and likely either her or the parent waved such a right.

The law gets weird with teenagers*. Sometimes they're considered adults (see: drivers licences and babysitting) sometimes they're not (see: voting rights).

* 13-17, 18-19 is an adult in the US.

 

[Terthna]

Iowa has a stupid ass law for minors where a parent or lawyer is acceptable, and likely either her or the parent waved such a right.

Sadly there's really no saving her; she's going to do time in jail, come out a hardened career criminal, and probably end up killing someone who doesn't deserve it at some point. That's how this sort of thing usually works out.

 

[bintananth]

Sadly there's really no saving her; she's going to do time in jail, come out a hardened career criminal, and probably end up killing someone who doesn't deserve it at some point. That's how this sort of thing usually works out.

If the conviction isn't overturned on appeal or pardoned away she might get lucky. She probably won't get lucky becauase "tough on crime" works both ways.

 

[mrttao]

The main job of a judge in a common law system, like ours, is to say "here's what the law says", act as a referee, and rule accordingly. It's the jury's job to evaluate the facts and return the verdict.

This is basically the same as saying "real communism has never been tried"
Who says this is the primary job of the judge? Judges, lawyers, and every liberal doesn't. The so called "conservative judges" never throw up a stink at their colleagues abusing the law for woke cult ends.

As for this case in particular. Judges can and do throw cases out of court at their sole discretion, regularly and often.
Judges can call lawyers to task for misbehaving (she is clearly stuck in a case with two hostile and incompetent lawyers. both defense and prosecution. both should be disbarred).

 

[LordsFire]

This is basically the same as saying "real communism has never been tried"
Who says this is the primary job of the judge? Judges, lawyers, and every liberal in office doesn't.

Politics is downstream from culture. When the culture of the social elite went from being 'somewhat corrupt' to 'let's throw out the idea of morality and truth altogether,' this kind of result was inevitable.

If you want a moral legal system, you need a moral nation. If you want a moral nation, you need a moral law. If you want a moral law, you need a moral lawgiver.

If you want to cut corruption down, you need to pursue godliness.

 

[Jormungandr]

You are breaking multiple laws depending on state.
Public intoxication, public urination, disorderly conduct is that in some states.
So yeah, depends on state.
You cant piss in the street anyway..

Oh yeah, I know they're all laws which would be broken by drunkenly pissing somewhere/being drunk in public, but my point is that doing so while in the vicinity of a school, even up to a dozen blocks away in the dead of night with no-one around, would automatically have you on the Sex Offenders' Registry.

I mean, fucking hell, that's like jaywalking a few blocks away from a prison and then being considered just as bad as a fucking serial-killer because there's a supermax nearby.

What the fuck, America?

 

[Abhorsen]

This is basically the same as saying "real communism has never been tried"
Who says this is the primary job of the judge? Judges, lawyers, and every liberal doesn't. The so called "conservative judges" never throw up a stink at their colleagues abusing the law for woke cult ends.

As for this case in particular. Judges can and do throw cases out of court at their sole discretion, regularly and often.
Judges can call lawyers to task for misbehaving (she is clearly stuck in a case with two hostile and incompetent lawyers. both defense and prosecution. both should be disbarred).

No, this isn't. We have a well defined definition of a judge throughout US history. And it's never been "I'm the judge, I'll do what I like."

Judges also don't and can't throw cases out 'at their sole discrection'. In fact, them throwing cases out is subject to appeal, and has to be based on an array of rules and laws, and if not done so correctly, will be overturned.

And finally, the issue is that the lawyer hasn't technically misbehaved (in a legal sense). She did a crime. The prosecutor decided to prosecute her, which he legally can do, but morally shouldn't have. This difference (between what is moral and legal) is usually solved somewhat by prosecutorial discretion, but really needs to also be solved by a law change as prosecutors aren't going to be moral.

 

[mrttao]

Judges also don't and can't throw cases out 'at their sole discrection'. In fact, them throwing cases out is subject to appeal,

do you even listen to yourself?
> they don't do it
> when they do the thing I claimed they don't do, it is subject to appeal.

Motion to dismiss

Definition of a motion to dismiss and when and why it might be used in a court case.

www.illinoislegalaid.org

it is called a dismissal. Cases can be dismissed by a judge.
When this happens it is called "the case was thrown out by the judge"

Step 1 of winning a lawsuit is actually finding a judge who thinks your lawsuit is not retarded. Otherwise the judge will just dismiss your lawsuit.

 

[mrttao]

And finally, the issue is that the lawyer hasn't technically misbehaved (in a legal sense). She did a crime. The prosecutor decided to prosecute her, which he legally can do, but morally shouldn't have. This difference (between what is moral and legal) is usually solved somewhat by prosecutorial discretion, but really needs to also be solved by a law change as prosecutors aren't going to be moral.

They are absolutely misbehaving though. They are clearly colluding with her incompetent (or outright malicious) court assigned assigned lawyer to entrap her and sabotage her, while engaging in frivolous politically motivated persecution.

There is no way she would have ever been convinced if there was an actual trial by jury. And a state persecutor works for the state, their job is not "to get the most number of convictions".

Also no, she didn't commit a crime. and I don't mean just in the morality sense.
1. self defense
2. underage
3. so called "temporary insanity". (although I personally think that the "temporary insanity" defense is a backwards and BS way of allowing "any reasonable human being in that situation would have done it" without admitting it. and should instead be replaced with "sane response" defense where you can't convict someone for doing what any sane human would have done in their position)

all 3 reasons why she didn't commit the crime she is accused of.

She was kidnapped and being illegally detained in an apartment in which she was being raped and pimped. she killed one of the many people holding her hostage in his sleep and escaped. This is classic self defense.

"but she could have just left the room without killing him first".
And what if he wakes up from the door opening and drags her back and kills her.

 

[Abhorsen]

do you even listen to yourself?
> they don't do it
> when they do the thing I claimed they don't do, it is subject to appeal.

Motion to dismiss

Definition of a motion to dismiss and when and why it might be used in a court case.

www.illinoislegalaid.org

it is called a dismissal. Cases can be dismissed by a judge.

... It being subject to review means it isn't at their "sole discretion". Do you understand what that means? It means that only the judge (the "sole" part) gets to decide (the "discretion" part). If you can be overruled, it isn't at your sole discretion, as other people can have have a say (and in fact, can overrule you).

On top of that, cases aren't just dismissed 'just because'. There has to be a legal reason for it. A dismissal is given for a variety of things, but not because the judge feels like it.

They are absolutely misbehaving though. They are clearly colluding with her incompetent assigned lawyer to entrap her and sabotage her, while engaging in frivolous politically motivated persecution.

There is no way she would have ever been convinced if there was an actual trial by jury. And a state persecutor works for the state, their job is not "to get the most number of convictions".

She absolutely could be convicted in a trial by jury. She can't make a self defense claim, as she wasn't in imminent fear of her life/bodily harm because the guy was sleeping. And I'm pretty sure her talking with cops blew more holes in any self defense case she might have had.

She has to rely on a trafficking victim defense through another Iowa law that a jury gets to decide, and the jury might not be sympathetic (it's always a dice roll with juries. You get one person with a loud enough personality and opinion, and they can sway it). So they went with the less risky option of a plea deal with a low enough minimum that she could get sentenced to just time served with the right judge.

I've seen no evidence for misbehavior at all on the part of the defense attorney.

She was being held hostage in an apartment, from which she was being pimped against her will, and then she killed one of the people holding her hostage. This is self defense.
"but she could have just left the room without killing him first". Yes, and then he wakes up from the door opening and drags her back and kills her.

Totally agree what she did should have been legal under self defense, but I'm pretty sure it currently isn't legal under self defense law as is.