General Discussion

I had no idea how messed up some justice systems were...
Lonnehart at 7:02PM, May 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,619
joined: 3-16-2006
I finished playing Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney last night. Then did some reading up about it and the Ace Attorney game series in general. Turns out the game kinda mirrors the real life justice system in Japan. Conviction rates at 99% shout out the words “Red Flag” to me. So if you're arrested for a crime there, it's nearly impossible to escape conviction. It'd be really bad if you were sentenced to the firing squad only to be exonerated six months later by DNA evidence…. I wonder how it is in other countries… hmm…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:39PM
Product Placement at 7:40PM, May 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
In Iceland judicial and executive power is kept separate. That means the police is unable to press charges, instead it is up to the district court to file them. Iceland doesn't have a jury. It is up to the judge to determine the guilt after listening to the accusation and defense. Appeals are made to the Supreme court and if that backfires as well, you'll need to look for the humanitarian court in Europe to continue the case.

Each district court case is ruled by a single judge and is administered by the Ministry of Justice. The supreme court is an independent entity that does not answer to the parliament. It is governed by 9 supreme judges who are appointed for life by the president. Once appointed, a supreme judge can't be forced to step down, unless it possible to prove that his reasoning skills has permanently deteriorated, via health complications. Each supreme court case is then attended by 3-5 judges who need to reach a unanimous decision about the validity of the district court ruling. In special cases, the president can demand that up to 7 supreme judges need to sit through a particularly serious court case.

That's about it in a nutshell.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
ozoneocean at 9:34PM, May 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 25,085
joined: 1-2-2004
Lonnehart
Turns out the game kinda mirrors the real life justice system in Japan. Conviction rates at 99% shout out the words “Red Flag” to me. So if you're arrested for a crime there, it's nearly impossible to escape conviction.
From what I've read (not much) the idea is that the police are so amazingly clever and infallible, that once you're arrested it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that they know you did it… or they wouldn't have arrested you in the first place. ;)
They're all like ultra-mega-super-duper Sherlock Holmes/Piorot/Mrs Marple/Lord Peter Whimsy/etc detective masterminds over there. -With x-ray vision, laser eyes and genetic detectors in their feet.

…either that or they don't like admitting they can make mistakes and there's a hell of a lot of innocent people locked up. :(
Product Placement
In Iceland
As long as traditional judge gear consists of fur robes, steel helmets, and great shaggy beards. Also, they should use a war hammer instead of a gavel. Or possibly an axe. :)
————————–

Here, we have a jury. 13 people initially, until the last stages of the case and then the extra guy leaves, making 12. -the extra one is there just in case one of the others gets sick or something.
The judge wears an elaborate black gown, with a scarf thingo and other 18th Century gear, as well as a grey horse hair wig.
The barristers each wear black robes over their suits. Their jackets and waistcoats are in the 18thC style. They wear white neck stocks and have short grey horse hair wigs. The style of dress and style of wig for barristers are slightly different depending on their rank.
-The barristers are also accompanied by solicitors and or partners who also wear a bit of gear…
Then there's the clerk (pronounced “Clark” ) of the courts who's dressed up as well!

It's interesting to see in action first hand. It's all extremely dour and solemnly serious though.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Lonnehart at 12:16AM, May 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,619
joined: 3-16-2006
ozoneocean
…either that or they don't like admitting they can make mistakes and there's a hell of a lot of innocent people locked up. :(

I read one article where the public confidence in the police force has fallen below 50%… Says something about how messed up things are as far as justice is concerned…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:39PM
The Gravekeeper at 3:04PM, May 25, 2010
(offline)
posts: 232
joined: 3-13-2009
I believe that under Napoleanic law the accused was considered guilty until proven innocent. And you had to prove yourself innocent. Against the court. Still beats mob justice, though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:14PM
Product Placement at 7:02PM, May 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 7,078
joined: 10-18-2007
The Gravekeeper
guilty until proven innocent.
That type of mentality was actually quite common back in the days and still is in some places. The concept of blind justice is relatively new.
Those were my two cents.
If you have any other questions, please deposit a quarter.
This space for rent.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:52PM
therealtj at 7:51PM, May 25, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,282
joined: 3-15-2007
ozoneocean
Lonnehart
Turns out the game kinda mirrors the real life justice system in Japan. Conviction rates at 99% shout out the words “Red Flag” to me. So if you're arrested for a crime there, it's nearly impossible to escape conviction.
From what I've read (not much) the idea is that the police are so amazingly clever and infallible, that once you're arrested it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that they know you did it… or they wouldn't have arrested you in the first place. ;)
They're all like ultra-mega-super-duper Sherlock Holmes/Piorot/Mrs Marple/Lord Peter Whimsy/etc detective masterminds over there. -With x-ray vision, laser eyes and genetic detectors in their feet.

…either that or they don't like admitting they can make mistakes and there's a hell of a lot of innocent people locked up. :(
Actually, this idea is played with a bit in the new Miles Edgeworth game. Basically, the reason he prosecutes so hard is because he trusts all his detectives. Of course, then the “antagonist” detective starts accusing a bunch of innocent people, saying the justice system will take care of his mistakes.

“The only moral it is possible to draw from this story is that one should never throw the letter Q into a privet bush, but unfortunately there are times when it is unavoidable.”
-Douglas Adams, The Restaurant At the End of the Universe
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
Lonnehart at 11:23PM, May 26, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,619
joined: 3-16-2006
Pheonix Wright's Objection!

Thought I'd share the article I read when I found it again. Made me wince to think that there are justice systems out there in democratic countries that are so lopsided against the defendant… especially those who may be innocent of their crimes. Makes me wonder how many innocent people are rotting in prison over there…
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:39PM
alwinbot at 10:20PM, May 27, 2010
(online)
posts: 884
joined: 1-12-2010
Lonnehart
Pheonix Wright's Objection!

Thought I'd share the article I read when I found it again. Made me wince to think that there are justice systems out there in democratic countries that are so lopsided against the defendant… especially those who may be innocent of their crimes. Makes me wonder how many innocent people are rotting in prison over there…
Well you don't want someone real bad to go free.
Read this comic. It is the greatest journal comic ever written and drawn. Trust me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:50AM
Aurora Moon at 11:11AM, May 28, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
alwinbot
Well you don't want someone real bad to go free.

so you're saying you would rather let 100 innocent people go to jail for a crime that they never committed at all… waste a whole chunk of their lives there, or murdered in the name of justice and the death penalty…..

just all so you don't want a single bad person to go free?

how would you feel if it was somebody you knew, like for example… your mother or your grandma?

say your mother or grandma stumbled across an body and were about to call the police when the aforementioned police rushed in, seeing her hover over the body. So instead of looking over the psychical evidence on the body that clearly shows that she didn't do it, they spend hours grilling and interrogating her in an horrible brutal manner that is akin to torture. finally, she confesses just so that they can stop their unusually cruel treatment of her even though it was obvious to anybody with a rational mind that she didn't do it.
they use her forced confession as the only piece of “evidence” they have against her, and completely ignores all physical evidence that points out that it wasn't her at all.
So they send her up the river, to the prison where she'll be bullied by dangerous female inmate, who will then stab her with homemade weapons and or rape her.
And then she's finally excuted for a crime that she never commited.

an innocent life completely destroyed…. would you still think that the means justifies the end when it was somebody you knew personally, and who you knew was completely innocent?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
kyupol at 12:50PM, May 28, 2010
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
In Canada, you can get charged for defending yourself.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.34.html

SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST UNPROVOKED ASSAULT
… / Extent of justification.
34. (1) Every who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

Now its up to a judge to determine if its reasonable. Most of the time, its “reasonable” for a god… err… cop… to taser and/or brutally assault a slave… er… citizen.

But if you're a store owner defending your store, good luck. I hope you have enough money to pay for a good lawyer.
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:27PM
alwinbot at 8:09PM, May 28, 2010
(online)
posts: 884
joined: 1-12-2010
Aurora Moon
alwinbot
Well you don't want someone real bad to go free.

so you're saying you would rather let 100 innocent people go to jail for a crime that they never committed at all… waste a whole chunk of their lives there, or murdered in the name of justice and the death penalty…..

just all so you don't want a single bad person to go free?

how would you feel if it was somebody you knew, like for example… your mother or your grandma?

say your mother or grandma stumbled across an body and were about to call the police when the aforementioned police rushed in, seeing her hover over the body. So instead of looking over the psychical evidence on the body that clearly shows that she didn't do it, they spend hours grilling and interrogating her in an horrible brutal manner that is akin to torture. finally, she confesses just so that they can stop their unusually cruel treatment of her even though it was obvious to anybody with a rational mind that she didn't do it.
they use her forced confession as the only piece of “evidence” they have against her, and completely ignores all physical evidence that points out that it wasn't her at all.
So they send her up the river, to the prison where she'll be bullied by dangerous female inmate, who will then stab her with homemade weapons and or rape her.
And then she's finally excuted for a crime that she never commited.

an innocent life completely destroyed…. would you still think that the means justifies the end when it was somebody you knew personally, and who you knew was completely innocent?
An innocent person gets hurt or killed by a woman/man who did the crime, but the man/woman is let go.

Imagine if one of your loved ones is raped, or killed and the facts point exactly to the person responsible. The man is let due to insufficient evidence go to do the same to another person. Then that family suffers the same thing you did. Would you want that to happen?

Sure, you don't want the innocent to get blamed for a crime they didn't commit. But you don't want the guilty to go free either.
Read this comic. It is the greatest journal comic ever written and drawn. Trust me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:50AM
Aurora Moon at 11:05AM, May 29, 2010
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
yes, but if the system actually traps more innocents than they do guilty ones then that system does not work!

especially if that same system lets go bad people and instead punishes the innocent people. which is what's happening out there in other countries where this sort of system is in place.

So basically with that kind of system there are more than a dozen bad people walking around completely FREE while the innocents are convicted in their place.

like in my scenario about your mother/grandma… you didn't stop to think that if somebody innocent were wrongly convicted, that means that the REAL killer is out there killing even more people.

and if it's normal for the police to jump to conclusions and jail people without any actual evidence… then that means that over 60% of people in their jails right now are completely innocent people… and that the real killers/criminals are still free out there somewhere.

think about that dude.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved