Judiciary Justice and Penal Structure in North America

[Balthazzar]

Innocent until proven guilty is the declared premise, yet we require incarceration and often enough, no release is permitted before trial. In that scenario, we have potentially innocent people accused of a crime going through the penalties associated with them before a declaration of guilt has been established. Are there alternatives to this structure and if so, what might they be?

I like the idea or concept of a type of purgatory (Sanctuary) that does not equate to punishment, but one of awaiting trial in anticipation of being set free from a declaration of guilt. This would not equate to jailtime, but one that accommodates more freedom for the accused, whether accused falsely or not. Perhaps something that helps ensure both compassion/human dignity and greater safety for all involved and penal infliction to be implemented after trial and a declaration of guilt established. The right of a speedy trial would need to be mandated. Sometimes these "trials" are delayed for years on end, leaving innocent people jailed for that length of time.

Is this something we are able to change in North America? If so, how and what might it look like?

A petition (perhaps) per state, sent up to our houses as a bill for consideration for implementation and/or for a redress of our grievances against North American penal structures.

(R)

 

[Pogo]

Innocent until proven guilty is the declared premise, yet we require incarceration and often enough, no release is permitted before trial. In that scenario, we have potentially innocent people accused of a crime going through the penalties associated with them before a declaration of guilt has been established. Are there alternatives to this structure and if so, what might they be?

I like the idea or concept of a type of purgatory (Sanctuary) that does not equate to punishment, but one of awaiting trial in anticipation of being set free from a declaration of guilt. This would not equate to jailtime, but one that accommodates more freedom for the accused, whether accused falsely or not. Perhaps something that helps ensure both compassion/human dignity and greater safety for all involved and penal infliction to be implemented after trial and a declaration of guilt established. The right of a speedy trial would need to be mandated. Sometimes these "trials" are delayed for years on end, leaving innocent people jailed for that length of time.

Is this something we are able to change in North America? If so, how and what might it look like?

A petition (perhaps) per state, sent up to our houses as a bill for consideration for implementation and/or for a redress of our grievances against North American penal structures.

(R)

Any of these ideas strike your fancy?

Bail - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

Innocent until proven guilty is the declared premise, yet we require incarceration and often enough, no release is permitted before trial. In that scenario, we have potentially innocent people accused of a crime going through the penalties associated with them before a declaration of guilt has been established. Are there alternatives to this structure and if so, what might they be?

I like the idea or concept of a type of purgatory that does not equate to punishment, but one of awaiting trial in anticipation of being set free from a declaration of guilt. This would not equate to jailtime, but one that accommodates more freedom for the accused, whether accused falsely or not.

Is this something we are able to change in North America? If so, how and what might it look like?

A petition (perhaps) per state, sent up to our houses as a bill for consideration for implementation and/or redress of our grievances against North American penal structures.

(R)

If the accused person is considered to be a flight risk or a potential danger to others, there might be valid reasons for keeping them locked up. But then there are those who are wealthy enough to get bailed out, a luxury not available to the less fortunate.

Of course, accused people shouldn't have to wait too long. The Constitutional supposedly guarantees a "speedy trial," but if one has to languish in jail for months on end still awaiting trial, that seems to go against the spirit of the Constitution.

I would also wonder about the premise of "innocent until proven guilty," since there are so many cases of people being innocent yet supposedly "proven guilty" in a court of law.

The real problem, in my opinion, is the lack of transparency, as well as the lack of accessibility to good, competent legal counsel. Our adversarial system has it set up so that the legal process is like some kind of athletic competition, where the top major-league all-stars are quite expensive and get big bucks, while the less affluent have to settle for the minor leaguers and bench warmers who don't stand a chance against the big leaguers.

 

[Viker]

Innocent until proven guilty is the declared premise, yet we require incarceration and often enough, no release is permitted before trial. In that scenario, we have potentially innocent people accused of a crime going through the penalties associated with them before a declaration of guilt has been established. Are there alternatives to this structure and if so, what might they be?

In my state, Kentucky, we don't have bondsmen so people can be penalized just for being poor. We've tried to pass extensive reforms but others wish to be "tough on crime" which amounts to being harsh on the poor. There's a lot of poor folks here.

 

[Balthazzar]

If the accused person is considered to be a flight risk or a potential danger to others, there might be valid reasons for keeping them locked up. But then there are those who are wealthy enough to get bailed out, a luxury not available to the less fortunate.

Of course, accused people shouldn't have to wait too long. The Constitutional supposedly guarantees a "speedy trial," but if one has to languish in jail for months on end still awaiting trial, that seems to go against the spirit of the Constitution.

I would also wonder about the premise of "innocent until proven guilty," since there are so many cases of people being innocent yet supposedly "proven guilty" in a court of law.

The real problem, in my opinion, is the lack of transparency, as well as the lack of accessibility to good, competent legal counsel. Our adversarial system has it set up so that the legal process is like some kind of athletic competition, where the top major-league all-stars are quite expensive and get big bucks, while the less affluent have to settle for the minor leaguers and bench warmers who don't stand a chance against the big leaguers.

Therin is an issue. The declaration of accused and the injustice that follows happens often enough to address the issue adequately. Flight risks are an issue, so this is yet another reason to implement something more functional. Land is a valuable commodity and there is much in North America unoccupied and able to be utilized for an effort such as this. Communities in and of themselves set up for this specific purpose, closely guarded and monitored, and well enforced is one option. It is much better than the alternative, which would be jailtime forced on all, and speedy trials would help ensure those found guilty are placed in more appropriate confines and that the innocent are less burdened by the accusations themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Innocent until proven guilty is the declared premise, yet we require incarceration and often enough, no release is permitted before trial. In that scenario, we have potentially innocent people accused of a crime going through the penalties associated with them before a declaration of guilt has been established. Are there alternatives to this structure and if so, what might they be?

I like the idea or concept of a type of purgatory (Sanctuary) that does not equate to punishment, but one of awaiting trial in anticipation of being set free from a declaration of guilt. This would not equate to jailtime, but one that accommodates more freedom for the accused, whether accused falsely or not. Perhaps something that helps ensure both compassion/human dignity and greater safety for all involved and penal infliction to be implemented after trial and a declaration of guilt established. The right of a speedy trial would need to be mandated. Sometimes these "trials" are delayed for years on end, leaving innocent people jailed for that length of time.

Is this something we are able to change in North America? If so, how and what might it look like?

A petition (perhaps) per state, sent up to our houses as a bill for consideration for implementation and/or for a redress of our grievances against North American penal structures.

(R)

Something that Canada does to minimize pre-trial detention and encourage a speedy trial is to give double credit for all detention before conviction

This means that if someone is in pre-trial custody for, say, 2 years and ends up being sentenced to 10 years, they would have 6 years remaining on their sentence after conviction.

 

[Balthazzar]

Something that Canada does to minimize pre-trial detention and encourage a speedy trial is to give double credit for all detention before conviction

This means that if someone is in pre-trial custody for, say, 2 years and ends up being sentenced to 10 years, they would have 6 years remaining on their sentence after conviction.

I am more so concerned with those who are found innocent at trial after serving jailtime and the quality and condition of the time spent prior to being set free. We have jails, or detention centers that are utilized both as a holding facility and as a penal consequence. The only difference is in time spent. To be innocent until proven guilty to date, is somewhat a fallacy, due to our penal structures and how the system operates. It could benefit from some reformation, if you ask me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Innocent until proven guilty is the declared premise, yet we require incarceration and often enough, no release is permitted before trial. In that scenario, we have potentially innocent people accused of a crime going through the penalties associated with them before a declaration of guilt has been established. Are there alternatives to this structure and if so, what might they be?

I like the idea or concept of a type of purgatory (Sanctuary) that does not equate to punishment, but one of awaiting trial in anticipation of being set free from a declaration of guilt. This would not equate to jailtime, but one that accommodates more freedom for the accused, whether accused falsely or not. Perhaps something that helps ensure both compassion/human dignity and greater safety for all involved and penal infliction to be implemented after trial and a declaration of guilt established. The right of a speedy trial would need to be mandated. Sometimes these "trials" are delayed for years on end, leaving innocent people jailed for that length of time.

Is this something we are able to change in North America? If so, how and what might it look like?

A petition (perhaps) per state, sent up to our houses as a bill for consideration for implementation and/or for a redress of our grievances against North American penal structures.

(R)

It's standard that when arrested for a crime, the
punishment starts immediately, long before the trial.
Sometimes this can last years.
The only exception is cops, who typically aren't even
arrested when caught committing a crime.

If the goal is to ensure the accused will show up for
their trial, then there's no need to keep them in a
prison cell, treating them as convicted inmates.
The common argument I hear for this is that
criminals shouldn't be treated like hotel guests.
Prejudicial & stupid, eh?

 

[Balthazzar]

It's standard that when arrested for a crime, the
punishment starts immediately, long before the trial.
Sometimes this can last years.
The only exception is cops, who typically aren't even
arrested when caught committing a crime.

If the goal is to ensure the accused will show up for
their trial, then there's no need to keep them in a
prison cell, treating them as convicted inmates.
The common argument I hear for this is that
criminals shouldn't be treated like hotel guests.
Prejudicial & stupid, eh?

It's standard and expected. First a trip to jail, then transportation to an area set up to specifically address this issue as a holding type community until trial or release is a fascinating option. The community could be set up with a standard of freedom not much different than in normal society. This would be more apt to satisfy those accused as well as those of us who might feel threatened with a normal release of a possible criminal. The store front, housing areas, etc. could all be operated and guarded by gov employees, each trained to handle situations that might arise from a disorderly or disruptive person within that holding community.

The ongoing monitoring could make prison sentencing more lenient for those who are found guilty of the crimes accused of (with good behavior), and those found innocent would be safer, as would the "normal" areas of society where those detained would not be allowed.

The concept: Temporary confinement within a small city or township, complete with gov residents trained to handle the detail. This would likely not find much opposition in the house, nor our standard civilian communities around the nation.

 

[Balthazzar]

To petition or not to petition?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If I'm not mistaken, wouldn't an effort such as the one addressed in the opening post fall into this category as it pertains to our bill of rights?

 

[Balthazzar]

Is the judiciary and penal system we have currently, satisfactory enough for those accused of a crime and our communities? If not, what are other options that might contribute to a better way or solution (redress) to handle crimes and those accused of them.