"Guilty" people in shooting crimes

[heavyhitter1k]

Someone explain this to me...

Someone like the LAX shooter or the Boston Marathon bomber or the Colorado shooter, they are alive after the evil act they commited. They have killed at least 1 person and injured more, and it is OBVIOUS that they were the person (via video or actually stopped in the act of said violent crime).

Explain to me WHY these people deserve a trial or why they need to drag out the process so long? Why are my tax dollars feeding them and housing them and providing "humane" things for these evil people? I guess my feeling is if you are caught dead to rights to the crime and its apparent you have taken someones life and attempted to take more, why should you be given another day to live?

Justice system seems flawed and the movie "Law-abiding Citizen" just really puts things into perspective. I don't get it, and I get tired of seeing their faces in the news because the system seems to take forever to prosecute these people.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Explain to me WHY these people deserve a trial or why they need to drag out the process so long?

1. Because the Constitution commands it.

2. You can pay for more courtrooms but that is a decision the taxpayers must make.

 

[CathyInBlue]

My take:

A) Because the evil that men do seldom starts and stops at what people witness immediately prior to their arrest. It's a good thing to take them alive for waterboarding to make sure we understand all of the evil that they have done and to make an accounting of it. Offing them deliberately means the bomber, kidnapper, murderer might have set more bombs, kidnapped or murdered more people that we might now never know about or be able to attribute to them.

B) For science. Uncovering the full depth and breadth of a person's heinous crimes while they are alive offers us the opportunity to target that person for scientific inquiry regarding their genetics and/or psychology and/or neurophysiology so to better understand those with similar conditions and treat those other people appropriately before they offend, even to the point of preventing those additional offenses in the first place.

 

[Fargo]

Someone explain this to me...

Someone like the LAX shooter or the Boston Marathon bomber or the Colorado shooter, they are alive after the evil act they commited. They have killed at least 1 person and injured more, and it is OBVIOUS that they were the person (via video or actually stopped in the act of said violent crime).

Explain to me WHY these people deserve a trial or why they need to drag out the process so long? Why are my tax dollars feeding them and housing them and providing "humane" things for these evil people? I guess my feeling is if you are caught dead to rights to the crime and its apparent you have taken someones life and attempted to take more, why should you be given another day to live?

Justice system seems flawed and the movie "Law-abiding Citizen" just really puts things into perspective. I don't get it, and I get tired of seeing their faces in the news because the system seems to take forever to prosecute these people.

How hard would it be for someone with a bit of skill and resources to make that video show YOU doing the shooting? Who are you going to have decide that this evidence is indisputable?

In this country, the state doesn't get to kill or imprison you unless a panel of citizens not under its control all agree you are guilty. There is a reason for this, just look back at history. We are in no way immune to the foibles and travails of any other civilization.

 

[BogWalker]

Constitution. 'Nuff said. I feel like you sometimes, but if we make an exception for them how long until nobody gets a trial?

 

[Libertarian01]

To Heavyhitter1k (et alia),

You left out the case of George Zimmerman. He shot an unarmed kid. He admitted to the shooting. He talked to the police (silly man) about the shooting without a lawyer. The gun was his. He admitted this. He pulled the trigger. There was NO argument from any quarter that he WAS NOT the shooter.

Should he not have simply been sentenced and thrown in jail???

Regards,

Doug

 

[actaeon277]

The trial is to prevent the State from exercising to much control.

"In the year 1297 this term was used in the Magna Carta. Perhaps the most famous clause of Magna Carta states:

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land.[SUP][1][/SUP]
​

This is sometimes called the "law of the land clause".
"


The State could grab a random person, say that they did it, claim proof in a video, incarcerate or execute, all to make it look like it is under control.
There are other reasons also.
But it was important enough, that the founding fathers determined it to be necessary enough for us.