11–20 of 145 posts
It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.
The U.S. is an order of magnitude more violent than the U.K., and always has been: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona.... In 1960 there was no drug war, there was no prohibition, the country was prosperous, but more than eight times as many people were murdered per capita than in the U.K.
> Sentences are harsh. Some American states impose life without parole for persistent but non-violent offenders; no other rich nation does.
In 1993-94, years where the per-capita murder rate in the U.S. was 9x higher than in the U.K., California and Washington voters approved the three strikes laws that lead to these harsh sentences by 3-1 margins.
It's easy to talk about the things that are wrong with the justice system in the U.S., but it's a pretty cursory analysis until you tackle the real question: when exercising their democratic will, whether in the small on grand juries or in the large through referendums, why do voters keep supporting the system?
> This year 46 policemen were shot dead and
> the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year
10% or so of death involving police is a policemen. Not that it justify the police force level, but an interesting statistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm inclined to agree about limits on discretion in these cases. You can't take back homicide, so it's better to hold a trial automatically and air the entire issue out. In cases of justifiable homicide, the justification will be much stronger for having been challenged and considered. The English jurist Lord Hewart said it best: 'Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.' http://en.wikipedia.or…
Then you run into the problem of innocent, or at least justified, people having their financial lives destroyed defending against murder charges. I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial".
But there almost always is in reality, if there's a reasonable suspect. The only exception seems to be with law enforcement officers.
How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury ). In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants.…
We hear that cases involving police killings get treated differently in an effort to have more transparency, or perhaps to allow grand juries in these cases to make a "more informed" decision. I don't buy this anymore. It doesn't provide more transparency, it plants doubt in a group that isn't supposed to be wrestling with any notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I served on a high-profile grand jury case once. I came away deeply disillusioned with how this process is said to work, and how it actually works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm inclined to agree about limits on discretion in these cases. You can't take back homicide, so it's better to hold a trial automatically and air the entire issue out. In cases of justifiable homicide, the justification will be much stronger for having been challenged and considered. The English jurist Lord Hewart said it best: 'Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.' http://en.wikipedia.or…
Then you run into the problem of innocent, or at least justified, people having their financial lives destroyed defending against murder charges. I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial".
Not to mention plenty already "have their financial lives destroyed" through the Civil Forfeiture law.
One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.
Several parts strike me 1. Killings by the police in the US are daily events but. "nobody knows the exact number as not all deaths are reported" WTF! The police don't report upwards if they shoot someone! 2. 37% of US blacks have confidence in the police (pretty high considering) but just 59% of whites. Good grief how do you police a city or a block if 40% of the nice white middle class people think you are going to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm inclined to agree about limits on discretion in these cases. You can't take back homicide, so it's better to hold a trial automatically and air the entire issue out. In cases of justifiable homicide, the justification will be much stronger for having been challenged and considered. The English jurist Lord Hewart said it best: 'Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.' http://en.wikipedia.or…
Then you run into the problem of innocent, or at least justified, people having their financial lives destroyed defending against murder charges. I don't think it's as simple as "if someone dies there needs to be a trial".
One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.
Do you have a link or cite that German police shoot to disable? Five minutes of Googling didn't turn up anything relevant for me. Thanks.