Generally, the concensus is that we have the best legal system in the world. Everyone accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty, the burden of guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In contrast, in many countries of the world, the perpetrator must prove his innocence, being accused of a crime is an assumption of guilt. One must prove his/her innocence. This concept alone sets us apart, and is perhaps the single most factor why we are considered a free country. Our country is a beacon of light for all other countries to aspire to.
With this considered, we do have our cracks in the system, where many unfortunates fall through. Success in America is measured in monetary gain. The more successful a person is in his/her endeavors the more one is compensated with material wealth and fame, generally speaking. The legal system is no exception. Competent representation is often times, out of monetary reach for many of our citizens.
ur text.
Many people accused of a crime are destitute and can't afford to hire an attorney. This being the case, the court appoints one. Most of the appointed attorneys are new at their profession and don't have the experience of a highly trained, experienced trial lawyer with many years of litigation under his belt. The successful trial lawyers charge very expensive fees that only the affluent can afford. Therefore, many of the accused are shut off from their services and must settle for whomever the court appoints. From the start, the accused has marginal legal representation.
While alleged perpetrators are waiting for trial they are incarcerated. Bail is set by the court and when the bail money is paid one is freed and waits for trial except in serious capital crimes. This procedure works fine for the people that can afford bail but if a person does not have the resources to pay the bail then he/she must wait for trial in jail. Our court systems are swamped with cases. Whatver the reasons are, not enough judges or too many legality procedures (red tape) the court dockets are backed up with pending criminal litigation. One can wait for months, and in some cases years for his/her trial to come up. Is the presumption of innocence being served, as it should be, by an innocent person spending months and years incarcerated for a crime that he/she did not commit? A reasonable person would think not. Yet this practiceis commonplace. The "tombs" in New York is filled with people waiting for trial that have been there for a long time, amongst the murderers, rapists and people accused of violent crimes.
With the advent of advanced technologies, namely DNA testing, there have been some very surprising revelations recently on how well our legal system works. Are the innocents always found not guilty? Is it true when you hear "If you are innocent you have nothing to worry about? Ideally we would all like to think that there are no innocent people convicted wrongly of a crime. Unfortunately, and especially lately, this has not been the case.
For example: in Illinois over the past few years, eleven men on "death row" have been freed after it was determined that they "couldn't" have committed the crime that they were convicted of, after testing their DNA. Understandably these revelations have been so disturbing that the Governor of Illinois has banned capital punishment in his state. Until we can get a "handle" on what's wrong with our system. Eleven men that were almost sent to their deaths for crimes they did not commit, in one state! Yet we continue to practice capital punishment in other states as if these recent developments have not happened. Respectively, the Governors in these states were "assured" of the person's guilt before the switch was pulled or the needle inserted. God help us all if they were not right!
Ten of these men were of color, and one was white. This fact takes us back to the argument above. Minorities in this country are not as affluent as the rest of us. They cannot afford adequate representation. "Justice" administered, for the innocent, is directly related to how deep one's pockets are.
On the other hand, can the judgement of the "innocent" be bought in this country? To be able to afford the best lawyers in the country assure that one can "get off" for a crime that he/she committed? Everyone knows of the O.J. Simpson case. Most everyone believes that he was guilty. Yet it was proven that he was "innocent" by a jury of his "peers". A botched investigation at best and a media nightmare warped our legal process. The question is how much of an exception was this case? Is this the norm for wealthy people accused of a crime? How many wealthy people are convicted of their crimes compared to people of ordinary means? How many wealthy people are on death row? Sadly the facts affirm that the more "well heeled" you are the less chance of conviction of any crime, guilty or not.
Many feel that with the ballistic rate of technology overtaking our lives that we have "big brother" breathing down our necks. On the contrary, technology may be the savior of our legal system.
