Trial and the rights of the accused

[sarisataka]

If an obviously guilty defendant is on trial but their rights are violated by the prosecution should they get to go free?

12 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, everyone is presumed innocent and deserves a fair trial
	9 (75%)
	No, you did the crime you don't get off on a technicality
	1 (8%)
	There should never be a dismissal with prejudice, have a new trial.
	1 (8%)
	It depends, what trial are we talking about?
	0 (0%)
	I voted
	1 (8%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[RayTy]

1. there needs to be a way to appeal not guilty verdicts.

[Dial H For Hero]

3. Slight problem, there.

[Effete Snob]

4. Just list the specific parts of the Bill of Rights you want to get rid of

Do you want to get rid of the entire Fifth Amendment or just part of it?

[Dr. Strange]

9. Ah yes.

No way that could wrong.

[sarisataka]

11. That begs the question

How many times can not guilty be appealed? Do we just have trials until the jury gets it right?

[RayTy]

13. One appeal.

Just one, but in a completely different area with different judge, jury, lawyer's etc. Too much corruption going on that favors punks like Zimmerman while putting others behind bars for far less.

[LiberatedUSA]

20. That will work out well for black defendants. N/t

[Zeitghost]

14. Absolutely NOT!

Few things would be more antithetical to our Constitution and the rights of the accused.

[Shrike47]

2. When the defense wins on a motion to suppress, the defendant was guilty but gets a pass.

There have to be rules to keep the State in check or they violate rights even more blatantly than they already do.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Lol at the option that's getting no votes.

[Effete Snob]

7. When, in truth, it should be the winner if people were honest with themselves

[WhiskeyGrinder]

8. I'm saying.

[Whiskeytide]

17. Smartest, most insightful post on the thread. I'm pissed I didn't think of it first. Nice. n/t

[Kaleva]

15. Based on what i read in other threads, that option ought to be near the lead.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. Yep.

[sarisataka]

18. I wanted to make sure

There was an option for truly honest and brave souls

[Effete Snob]

6. Do you know that the Constitution has NOTHING to do with the "rights of victims"

Most of the Bill of Rights applies to persons who are charged with, on trial for, and even convicted of, a crime.

Those things are not there to make people feel good, and it is not there to do anything for crime victims.

Those things are there there to prevent us all from becoming the victims of a tyrannical government.

In order to deter due process violations, we have opted for a system that tries to minimize the incentive for engaging in them.

There is a potential gaming problem with that approach, but it is preferable to a lot of other judicial systems.

[sarisataka]

12. Quite aware

Which is why the question is about the rights of the accused.

There are those however who believe some cases are "exceptions"

[forthemiddle]

10. I would rather have a guilty person go free

Even a right wing nut job, than an innocent person in jail.

Those rules are there for a reason, and justice must be blind. Just because you don’t like this defendant, and let’s face it, most here can’t stand him, doesn’t mean we should lessen the “innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, and innocent until proven guilty.

[Kaleva]

19. I can go back and forth on Option 1 and Option 4

Option 1 is my answer for the real world. Option 4 is a possibility when discussing certain cases on a discussion board

[dsc]

21. It depends what right was violated and how