Personally I think there are probably some who deserve to be there, but some who are innocent. If one innocent person is being held without acccess to a lawyer or a chance to be tried, I think it is one too many. Is there something in the Constitution that says we can do this?
127392
The problem isn't with doing bad things to terrorists.  I don't think that anybody left or right really wants guilty terrorists to not be punished.  The problem as I see it is that it is too easily abused.  We have to accept the president's good word that he's only jailing the guilty.  Which is all fine and dandy, as long as we have an omniscient God in the whitehouse, or at least someone who has a heart of gold.  \n\nThe problem is that nobody is perfect and at least when there's an actual legal system that applies, there is some mechanism to right impropriety.  But as things stand, there isn't really and we have to depend on the system working perfectly.  \n\nThe problem with this die hard logic is that eventually a Democrat will get into the Whitehouse.  Maybe even (*gasp*) Hilary Clinton.   The question that always is on my mind to a dedicated republican is would you trust a Democratic administration with a democratic congress with said powers? It will happen eventually.
477790
for me, anyone guilty of murder should be able to earn, but all their money should then be allocated to his/her victims.... a permanent indenture if you like.\nbut i agree with you, people like oj should be condemn to end their lifes in a morass of anonymity... who wants that kind of bloke for a role model to our children
519940
First question - Yes. It is a greater crime to send innocent people to jail - or worse.\n\nWe are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.\nJames Madison \n\nI believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.\nJames Madison
215332
Well, if you read the text of most (most) of the protections guaranteed by the US Constitution, it says "no person"  rather than "no citizen".... which kind of begs the question how some conservative strict constructionalists can argue that "person" really only means "citizen"...\n\nBut I've heard a lot of people say that they don't think non-US citizens should have rights. What's even more frightening is that a lot of people I've talked to think that even US citizens shouldn't have any constitutional protections if they are SUSPECTED of being involved in terrorist activities. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept is totally out of the window. At least, according to the Bush administration's current policies (see US v. Padilla).\n\nI'm just stocking up on popcorn (and canned goods) and waiting for the fireworks to start.
596378
Yes, I think they should. We should all have equal rights, especialy if we are innocent in the things that we have been accused of.
465608
Your number 4 is alittle disturbing. Directly or indirectly ? We all could fit in that column. Number 9 doesn't mean anything , not with the amount of  lawsuits in this country, or did you forget about innocent until proven guilty ? I do get your point about corruption in government , which I believe is your point. Does your list just include senators and congressmen ? Point is , the American people vote these scums into office to represent their areas, but, money seems to be the only control. What we need is people to honor their commitment to serve the people of the United States and not all the special interest groups who have all the money.
520146
Yes i agree. So what if he forgives them. If they are not prosecuted they will do it to someone else. He has no right to allow that to happen to someone else. Perhaps he would feel different if he knew it would be his wife or children that would go through it if he does not testify. In my book it makes him as bad as them.
523486
Lawyers are officers of the court and support the system - the Constitution - and ensure the process works.   Lawyers do not let bad people out into the community.  The Constitution has a process where the guilt or innocence of a defendant can be determined.  If an accused is not convicted, not charged, etc., then the adversarial process has "let them out."  The government's lawyers will zealously represent the government and do what it can to charge and convict while the defense attorney must zealously represent their client's interests.  Lawyers do know the difference between "bad people and good people," but that is irrelevant.  In the US, every individual is entitled to legal representation.  \n\nImagine if you were arrested for watching that movie because it is a crime to watch criminal dramas and popular opinion was people who watch those movies should go to jail.  Now imagine the government throwing everything it had to ensure you go to jail.  Alternatively, imagine you are accused of being a pedophile and are arrested/charged, but you really are just a sweet person who has been wrongfully accused.  Should lawyers not represent you because you're a bad person?\n\nThe world is only black and white if you pretend it is.
200523
In a ideal situation we should remove the laws that restrict posession by law abiding citizens.\n\nBut more importantly...\n\nENFORCE the laws we already have.
230780
My friend is a public defender.  Even guilty people have a right to a competent defense.  They need an attorney since the other side has one.  Someone who helps them get a fair deal or plea bargain.  Someone who can help them evaluate the evidence against them and decide if they should plead or go to jury trial.  They have a right to legal advice.  It's a part of our justice system.  You can disagree if you want.  That's just how our laws have evolved.
596476
I suppose if you're going to find anyone here to agree with you wholeheartedly, it would be someone in my line of work.\n\nBut I don't think I can.\n\nCriminals, worthless as they are, are still present in this country.  As such, they are entitled to all the same protections and privileges you and I are by virtue of being present in this country.\n\nThe issue is that they use those protections far more often than you and I do, because they're out doing the very things you've talked about, where you and I aren't.\n\nYou and I have the right to take legal action against someone who causes us harm, either directly or indirectly.  Whether or not what we're doing at the time was legal or had merit is an issue to be weighed by a judge or jury.  If you or I broke into someone's house, got trapped in a garage and had to eat dog food, a judge or jury would decide what we were due, just as a judge or jury would decide what we were due if we were walking down the street and got hit by a drunk driver.\n\nI don't think it would be fair to tell people that just because of what they were doing, they're not entitled to anything because of the bad thing that happened to them.  If it were, prostitutes (regardless of how you feel about them), could not file criminal charges against someone who beat them, raped them, or killed them.  Using the logic you might want to apply to these kinds of situations, the prostitute was breaking the law (same as the burglar), so she shouldn't be afforded any legal protections (same as the burglar).  \n\nThe law is very dynamic....what might be considered illegal today, under a certain set of circumstances, might not be considered illegal tomorrow, under a slightly different set of circumstances.  Civil judges and juries have enough to decide about a case like you're talking about without having to also decide if what the plaintiff was doing at the time was a violation of criminal law as well (after all, that's why we have criminal courts).  What the plaintiff was doing at the time of the "injury" is certainly relevant and I'm fairly sure a judge or jury is allowed to consider it in some manner, but to tell people they can't sue someone just because what they were doing might have been against the law, or because we as a society don't like what they were doing, doesn't seem to be a good idea.\n\nLook - you're absolutely right when it comes to criminals taking advantage of the law in some cases.  But those cases, I suspect, are few and far between (but like anything else, they make the news because they are spectacular), and I'm certain they are the exception, not the rule.  And of course, we don't know what the criminal plaintiff has received as compensation... could be a judge or jury decided that one dollar was enough in some of these cases.  \n\nBut...no matter the awards, I think it's important to recognize that criminals don't, "have so many rights"...they have the same rights as law-abiding citizens do, and that's probably how it should be (but I'll repeat: they use them WAY more than the rest of us do).  Let the judge or the jury decide what someone's case is worth, don't just say they don't have a case because we don't like what they were doing at the time.
379928
i think him being mentally challenge would be in consideration. But it also will be determine how severely he/she is. If he/she is very servery mentally challenge then maybe he Will be put into a mental institution BC he is a danger to society. So it all depends on how severally he/she is on what the judge will say. If it is a jury that is gonna do it then it could go any way. they could fine him totally Innocent or not. but it depends on how server it is and if the Judge is doing the judging or if it is going to be jury.
511755
Isn't it always a good idea to put self-admitted criminals on trial?\n\nDoes the US stand to gain anything by allowing someone to admit to breaking the law, and then not even put them on trial because they claim (without any legal support) that their position entitles them to break the law at will?\n\nIf Bush is put on trial (impeached = trial) and found not guilty, so be it. But not even putting him on trial sends the wrong message. It tells the world that the US doesn't care about the rule of law, and that we allow those in power to break the law at will.\n\nHardly a justification for the US claim to depose other dictators.
456283
Isn't being a bad citizen too broad?  Wouldn't major law and guidelines have to be broken?  If not, who would be the judge?  I think that you know that money pays a big part in this consideration.  I think that it an enlightening idea, I just wonder at first glance- how would it be regulated?   Money is the big player.  Thanks for making me think about something different.
420508
International law - no grounds for it.\n\nA stronger case could be made for treason trials for several Democratic leaders.  Are you in?
217408
No one objects when those who COMMIT crimes are extradited...justice should be served even if criminals flee.  However, we all know that accusations are made against innocent people, and that not all legal systems are the same in terms of fairness.  It is only natural that courts that have the accused before them who face trial elsewhere are going to want to be pretty well convinced that there is a solid case to answer before they send them abroad.
166895
Yes, definitely.  No where in the constitution is there a guarantee of a trial by a "jury of one's peers" as is widely believed.  The sixth amendment ensures only "the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...".  \n\nThere is evidence in the writings of the founding fathers that the concept of a "jury of one's peers" means exactly that; a jury should be made up of people from the community of the accused who are familiar with the accused and have some knowledge of the accused's nature and character.\n\nI don't think that's a great idea for the world we live in today and that is why I am in favor of professional jurors who have a broad educational background in addition to specific training in the application of law.