Problem With New Sc

[journeyman]

I have no idea of current statistics of case filings in our litigious society, but I beg to differ. Every judge I know is busy every day hearing the cases that are on their dockets. Retired judges, much like retired priests are covering Masses, are hearing cases. There are literally hundreds of cases being heard, setttled or tried on a daily basis in the larger court systems in the Commonwealth.

procedural factoid . . . if the Commonwealth does not bring a criminal defendant to trial within x days (I think it is 120), the defendant goes free. The same judges hearing the civil cases also hear the criminal cases. As a taxpayer, do you want the criminal trials heard on time, or do you want an "exception" to bump the case off the docket and let the defendant go free . . . "on a technicality" is what I think the law and order types call it.

Scheduling requirements are there to ensure a justice system for all . . . .the system is, sadly, a mass production system . . . if you don't stay on schedule, it isn't just your case that is affected, it's everybody else this week, and next.

Should there be an escape hatch when someone messes up - ideally, yes - but once the product on the assembly line gets past my station without part A being bolted to part B . . . it will cost a fortune to shut the system down so I can go fix my mistake. In the justice system, you don't get that chance unless it is specifically granted. I don't know what they do on assembly lines, but I hear stopping the line is not high on anyone's list of things for which they want to be responsible. In the judicial system, they deny your motion and move on to the next case.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you say in the justice system youdon't get the chance to fix the mistakes, and act as if it's something that's just hte way it is. like an assembly line you say. i say you can make an analogy for anything, and it's all just a way to rationalize the decision that was made.

the bottomline is that a man was denied justice due to professionals, not his own error.

and the law isn't clear that it extends to that, so the justices should seek justice, not dead black letter application. i can see and coudl accept that the judge's mistake shouldn't allow the loose interpretation. but, if not the judge, then at least the lawyer. the bottomline again was that it wasn't teh defendant.

as far as petitioning congress, what would they say in the petition? as for this specific law of 14 days, they could change it, but probably won't as it's a single person who they don't care about. as for legilating judicial philoohpy, like allowing loose interpretation, what do you want them to say? "you can interpret loosely sometimes"? i guess it's better than nothing, but it's not like that gives much guidance on each individual situation. that's why the judges in my mind are needed, not so much for the obvious, but for the less obvious but that needs insight that cannot come from trying to make limited laws that cover unlimied reality. i think no one would say they shouldn't interpret loosely sometimes. and most would laugh to hear you say to make a law that says "you can interpret loosely sometimes" because the judges already do, often. they prob wouldn't even consider passing that law.
i'm not sure what you think i would have to petition congress to do.

the bottomline that you're all trying to dance around in order to justify your predetermined position for your beloved court. a defendant was denied justice because of error of professionals, that was not his own err.

you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1313451' date='Jul 5 2007, 10:49 AM']the bottomline is that a man was denied justice due to professionals, not his own error.[/quote]
Being a convicted murderer is no error?

[dairygirl4u2c]

now you're switching the argument from what it was, about procedure.
we can have maybe a little leway considering that he had his say in court. but, justice is not served in our system until all possible appeals have been taken advantage of. here, he could not appeal. appeals overrule the lower courts sometimes. this could be that time. he could be an innocent man.
statistically he's prob guilty, and one can take solice in that, but our system should leave no reasonable doubt.

Edited July 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c