I'm a Native Houstonian and Texan-3rd Generation. I've always been proud of my Texas heritage and its brief, but fascinating history. That said, "Rugged Individualism" can no longer be an apt description of our State. I am mainly writing this to rant on our recent legal system, and its obvious problems. We all know that no system is perfect, but the courts power just seems to be overwhelming in regards to the very citizens it was meant to protect. First, the prosecutors. Since when is circumstantial evidence and hearsay good proof of guilt? I saw a story on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago about a man who was put on death row for 18 years due to circumstances. No proof otherwise on him at all. The prosecutors even took out "proof" that he didn't do it so they could get a conviction. After 18 years, he received a full pardon, and $100. Next, Calvin Murphy. Again, no proof other than some rotten kids trying to "get back" at their dad. Yet prosecutors went with it and labeled him "Child Molester" throughout the case for a conviction. Thank goodness the jury didn't buy their crap. Otherwise, prosecutors would've locked up an innocent man on preposterously flimsy evidence. Now I'm no innocent whose never been to court, but I am sick and tired of prosecutors and judges these days taking an obvious stance of guilty until proven innocent, based on nothing more than a cop's word over your own. It disgusts me. We've always been a proud State that has always encouraged people succeeding on their own accord. In my opinion, the Courts recently are doing anything but that. It just seems to me that the courts are more about defending their own interests first, with the people's interests a distinct and lesser second. Might be time for a thorough revamping of these people...
I believe that this is one of the major deletorious effects that has been caused by the "War on Drugs." Said policy REQUIRES that the jury believe that the defendant is guilty until proven innocent and also requires that the jury believe everything the police say, even though police have coined a term that they use to refer to their sojourns on the stand: testi-lying. I was talking with an Economics instructor on Sunday and he mentioned that one of his friends is very active in a "fully informed jury" movement in the Northwest area of the country. I made the comment that with a FULLY informed jury (instructed on the use of nullification among other things), the "War on Drugs" would end in less than a decade and he added on gambling and prostitution. Jury nullifications were one of the driving forces to getting alcohol Prohibition overturned and would also be a driving force in hamstringing the WoD.
Great post FFB, and Andy, I agree. The problem is with the courts but also with the police. I have a friend who, early last year, spent 24 hours in Harris County jail, for having a mar1juana cigarrette butt (that was smaller than the fingernail on his pinky) in the ashtray of his car. They charged him with possession, and, as soon as it went to trial, the judge immediately dismissed it.
Damn.....try explaining THAT to your employer! Seriously...is this the norm in Texas??? D'yall have to hide in your basements with the drapes closed and the airfreshners going..because that's crazy! Will there be mass arrests at the Motley Crew concert, or do they kind of let that stuff go?? A man should be allowed to huff a joint in peace -- you'd think? (somehow, we've turned a deathrow and calvin murphy thread into an Andymoon special...)
FFB, I haven't heard of the death row case you mentioned, so I won't comment on it, but to say the evidence against Murphy was flimsy isn't right. It may be a position that you are uncomfortable with, but it has long been the case that you can legitimately convict someone solely on the basis of testimony. It is up to the jury to decide what testimony it considers credible. In Murphy's case, the prosecution had testimony from 5 alleged victims, plus a couple of other peripheral witnesses. Ultimately, the jury decided their testimony was not credible and found Murphy not guilty. But, it is not as if the prosecutor was not justified in bringing the case to court given the amount of evidence they had. They had a lot.
Exactly. My buddy was driving downtown and was at a red light in a construction zone. He drives a BMW with a leather interior, and had his windows down. Apparently he was pulled too far into the intersection. A cop walked over to ask him to back up a little, and then said "is that mar1juana I smell in your car?". BNB...it would be nice to live where you do, where all you have to do is visit the local coffee house.
yes, it is. when I was much younger(15+yrs ago)...I had the misfortune of being caught with a tiny roach(about the size andy refers to) and I spent the night in jail....nothing ever came of it since it was such a small amount...but still...the taxpayer's money wasted just to keep me in a cell for a tiny amount of pot... and you dont have to explain ti to a employer since it never went to trial and thru whatever wrangling my lawyer did, it isnt on my record either. just another example of the wastefullness of the WoD.
OK, apparently my recollection was skewed on the first case. It was 17, not 18 years, and he was serving 60 years, not death row. It is an astounding case, however. JV: On Murphy's case, we'll agree to disagree. I really never believed those women. And to your assessment that a person can be ligitimately convicted based on what someone else says about them with no further proof... Exactly how in the hell can there be no reasonable doubt if the only proof is someone saying it's true?
The police and the courts are now seeing the civilians as profits instead of the people that pay them through taxes. They continue to set up check points for expired stickers no seat belts etc. over by my houe and the cops are just smiling and having a great time. I saw one go out into the middle of the feeder and hit this one guys hood with his hand and yelled at him to pull into the parking lot where they were writting up tickets to everyone. Jerk.
how would you ever prove rape allegations against a guy who actually committed these acts many years prior if this were the case?? you're not going to have DNA evidence. and if JV is right, apparently they actually had CPS investigating Murphy at a time that coordinated with the accounts of this story...so it wasn't merely a he said/she said. ultimately your beef is with the district attorney's office. the guy was indicted and stood trial. i don't practice criminal law, so i don't have any real strong insight. but, if you're right and this guy did nothing, then the system worked. we don't want frivilous cases..but we also don't want a system where vicitims' cases aren't taken seriously when they approach the district attorney. you and i were not privy to all the evidence nor the conversations that originally went on between the DA's office and the family. so i think you may be speaking out of turn when commenting on the weight of the evidence....because we also have no clue of what, if any, evidence was excluded from trial.
you understand, of course, that the policeman who pulls you over doesn't keep the money you're fined, right? the judge who takes your plea at the hearing doesn't have you write a check to him directly. look...these things you're talking about are traffic ordinances being enforced. do we NOT want them to enforce the law?? or do we just want them to enforce them on people other than us and those we know, directly?? was your seat belt on? no? sorry...there's a fine for that. the legislature decided on the fine. pay it. i really have no patience for b****ing when someone gets caught doing something they knew was wrong before they did it.
I'm stunned. May not go on your record...but you still have to explain why you didn't show up for work...(or why you didn't come home that night). Yet from the hangout posts we read...there are still a bunch of stoners posting here!!! (and that's not counting the confused GARM ramblings...). Are you all nuts! I'm feel like I've led such a sheltered life! Do people toke up at concerts??? Are there road blocks at the Taco Bell drive-thru?
Testimony as evidence has been commonplace since the inception of trials. It's even in the Bible (Deu 19:15 NIV): "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Your distrust of the he-said/she-said seems like a very modern one since we have come so far in being able to gather and analyze forensic evidence. Certainly testimonial evidence can be manipulated, though possibly not as easily as one might think. I just mean to point out that prosecuting someone on testimony alone is not a new or growing phenomenon; it is very old and perhaps only seems less valid because it is less common than it had once been. It is also not an issue that I would think was contained to the State of Texas. The Rodriguez case you mentioned does suck. It seems in that case, ironically, the conviction came from too much reliance on forensic evidence that turned out to be false (blood work), and not enough on testimony (from the other attacker). Btw, is this one of those cases the Houston Crime Lab screwed up? I swear the people running that lab should be in jail.
Max: The system unequivically did not work in the Rodriguez case. It took a law firm that does pro-bono work over a decade to prove that the D.A.'s office literally hid evidence that all but proved the man's innocence. Without that firm, he's still there. To your respone to jiggadi's post, they just did an expose on ch. 13 about police getting "bonuses" for writing tickets. So, actually, yeah, the cop is benefitting monetarily for writing you a ticket. No seatbelt-speeding-expired reg. tix are whatever you want them to be. Just remember this... Every law is designed with some monetary "perk" these days. Parking meters are incorporated into the cities budget on how many ticket fees said parking meter should generate. It's B.S. Most tickets are. They just did the exact same thing for D.W.I's, No Ins., and no Driver's License. If all this policing is for the average citizen's benefit, then why are they budgeting on the citizen's failure?
Never addressed the Rodriguez case...but I have said before I'm against the death penalty because we clearly have an imperfect system, and you may very well find yourself executing someone who's actually innocent. That's intolerable to me. I don't know about the perks for cops/judges/etc. I just am not sensitive to those who break traffic ordinances, and then b**** when they're caught. I speed. When I get caught, I pay my damn fine or take defensive driving. It sucks, but I know it's the risk when I get caught. As for designing laws to make money...the seat belt law requires a fee...what other penalty would you like to see in its place? Jail time?? We have a vested interest in making sure people wear a seat belt. D.W.I.'s?? Seriously??? Yeah...i feel sorry for those poor guys out there driving drunk. I think you and I have a very different outlook on the world. That's cool. But I don't think we're going to find much agreement on these issues.
So you think that it should be OK for people to drive without insurance to pay for the damages they might cause? And without bothering to learn how to drive and get licensed? And, based on your list, drive around drunk? The public might disagree with you. It's a fact of life that people commit driving infractions, parking violations, etc. and pay for them. It would be nonsensical to not use the revenues generated to cover the costs of enforcement (cops, judges, etc.).
I've agreed with you on more than one thing in the past, Max. A little off the initial topic, but I will always have a problem with Courts incorporating traffic fines into their budget. ie: This new seatbelt fine should net us $500 million annually. It reeks of their having a vested interest in getting that amount. As far as D.W.I.'s, I'm always amazed at why people have made this as bad an offense as it currently is. 1980-DWI, was treated the same as a traffic ticket 2004-DWI=the most often committed violent crime 1980=too lax 2004=Way too harsh I'm not saying a DWI should go unpunished, but to the extent it is at now is just as absurd. Let the flaming begin...
are you kidding????? seriously???? a DWI is no big deal??? just like another traffic ticket???? man...just because it wasn't looked at as seriously before doesn't mean we were right then and wrong now. again..i think we see the world very differently.
