Jump to content

Julie- a new person


julie

Recommended Posts

Frankie

I'm not familiar with the legal system over there as to how crimes are tried, etc .

 

This is probably a stupid question,but are there any true crime books that take place over there that would be available ,like on amazon ?

 

It'd be interesting to see the differences .

 

That's not a stupid question at all :) However, I think there isn't that much true crime books published in Finland, and the ones that are, will most likely not get published in any other language. The biggest difference in the legal systems in my opinion is that we don't have a jury like you do, we have a court of law that is made up of a number of judges and they decide on the verdict. I find your jury duty utterly fascinating and I just can't believe that 'normal people' are selected to decide on someone else's life.

 

Edit: If you are curious, here's where you can read about the Finnish judicial system :)

Edited by frankie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankie

Your country may have a good idea ,letting trained and educated judges who probably have lots of years of experience ,to decide the fate of a person on trial .

 

We have different systems here,sometimes depending on the magnitude of the crime. There are times when a person may ask for a judge's answer only, and turn down the chance to have a jury .Or others who have been caught for crimes can just plead guilty and save the taxpayer's money ,and everyone's time by admitting to their guilt .Those cases aren't as common,and are usually someone who has been caught for multiple crimes and they know they have no way of getting out innocent ,or they may be people who know they have done wrong and want to save their family (and sometimes the victim's family) ,the pain of sitting through a long and sometimes very graphic trial .

 

I think it says that we are entitled to a speedy trial by a jury of our "peers",which would be people of our status that would be on our same level in life .

 

I think they originally intended for this to be a fair way to decide a person's guilt or innocence, but sadly, there are many times where "money talks" . If you are rich or famous, you can afford a good legal team to defend you . If you are poor ,you usually don't have the money to hire a lawyer so a court appointed one is given to you,and these are usually young lawyers just beginning their careers,so you probably won't get someone as willing to fight really hard for your freedom .

 

It's also sad and unfair,but there are times when your race plays a part in your outcome. Not as much as it used to be ,but it still happens,depending on where you live as to how often that occurs . Certain parts of the country are more behind the times than others .

 

There are also times when it may be a murder trial and the jury has to decide the punishment along with guilt or innocence .

 

Usually if it's a murder case, both sides, prosecution and defense get to choose or remove potential jurors .I forget what the number is,but they sort of "interview" people being selected for the jury ,and each side can pick or dismiss a certain number before the final group is chosen .

 

It's also sometimes very unfair that there are trained professionals, such as doctors, coroners, fire or drug experts,who will be called for one side or the other and give their "spin" on things, so the jury may be swayed in that direction ,but there are just as many times where the OTHER side hires a professional to argue it from their viewpoint,so it leaves the jury to decide which "professional" is more believeable .

 

There have been times where a famous person kills someone and they get off due to their looks and station in life .The juries are "stacked" so that they don't believe that person could possibly have committed such an evil act ,even though any normal old person who would do the same crime would be found guilty in a heartbeat .

 

Sometimes if it's a repeat offender,such as a serial rapist ,his past crimes are not admissable in court,so the jury isn't allowed to even know they have a history of this type of crime .

 

Anyhow, that is one reason I like reading true crime,because you learn a lot about our legal system and how they come to a decision . Our system ,I guess, is intended to work well, but like most anything, there are flaws in it. I don't think there is a perfectly fair way to have trials . People will always tend to judge others by their looks,their money ,etc .

 

The best thing to have happened in a long time is DNA -- if they can use that in a trial,no matter who the person is, it is foolproof . It has gotten many an innocent person off death row.

 

I read a book awhile back that told how many known people have been killed on death row who were later found to be innocent due to DNA .That's why I don't believe in the death penalty . If we make just ONE mistake like that,and put an innocent person to death, then we are no better than murderers ourselves .

 

Sorry to ramble on and on, but I'm quite the YAKKER sometimes ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't apologize for your long post, it was most interesting to read! :smile2:

 

Your country may have a good idea ,letting trained and educated judges who probably have lots of years of experience ,to decide the fate of a person on trial .

 

I agree with this. The judges are educated people who are definitely more in tune with these things obviously, and personally I would hate to be drawn into a jury and have to decide about someone else's fate.

 

 

We have different systems here,sometimes depending on the magnitude of the crime. There are times when a person may ask for a judge's answer only, and turn down the chance to have a jury .Or others who have been caught for crimes can just plead guilty and save the taxpayer's money ,and everyone's time by admitting to their guilt .Those cases aren't as common,and are usually someone who has been caught for multiple crimes and they know they have no way of getting out innocent ,or they may be people who know they have done wrong and want to save their family (and sometimes the victim's family) ,the pain of sitting through a long and sometimes very graphic trial .

 

Yes I knew that sometimes there's only one judge deciding on the case, and sometimes there's a jury, but it's never been clear to me when they go for the other and when the other one. I suppose the attorneys of the defendant play a part of this, figuring out which way they would get the best verdict for their client? I've watched a lot of crime series with court drama (Matlock, Ally McBeal, Good Wife, Law & Order, etc, etc) and it's still a very blurry business to me :D There are just so many things and details to know. It's all very interesting though, and it makes good TV in my opinion.

 

I think they originally intended for this to be a fair way to decide a person's guilt or innocence, but sadly, there are many times where "money talks" . If you are rich or famous, you can afford a good legal team to defend you . If you are poor ,you usually don't have the money to hire a lawyer so a court appointed one is given to you,and these are usually young lawyers just beginning their careers,so you probably won't get someone as willing to fight really hard for your freedom .

 

There have been times where a famous person kills someone and they get off due to their looks and station in life .The juries are "stacked" so that they don't believe that person could possibly have committed such an evil act ,even though any normal old person who would do the same crime would be found guilty in a heartbeat .

 

Money definitely talks, and as much as things are initially intended to be as fair as possible, as long as there are human beings involved, there's a possibility of corruption. There will always be good and bad people, and this shows in every aspect of life, not just the court cases. Now, why did I think of O. J. Simpson the second you mentioned people who are rich and famous... :rolleyes: I study English at a university and we have this American professor and we discussed the case once in class. I'm not sure if I got it right, but I think our professor said that in America you can try one case only once and the verdict stays. Is that possible? I think he said that O. J. could now basically say that he was in fact guilty but he can still walk free. And didn't he write a book called If I Did It. Why would he be so stupid?!

 

It's also sad and unfair,but there are times when your race plays a part in your outcome. Not as much as it used to be ,but it still happens,depending on where you live as to how often that occurs . Certain parts of the country are more behind the times than others .

 

Yes, I've heard about some cases :(

 

Usually if it's a murder case, both sides, prosecution and defense get to choose or remove potential jurors .I forget what the number is,but they sort of "interview" people being selected for the jury ,and each side can pick or dismiss a certain number before the final group is chosen .

 

Yep, I know about this, this was also featured in Helter Skelter. It's all very baffling. The idea of trying to find people who don't know about the case beforehand and are therefore unbiased, when the actual case may have been in newspaper all over the country. I would think that it would prove to be a difficult task, and how the heck can they really know if someone's lying or not, about knowing about the case beforehand.

 

And another thing that I don't like about juries: doesn't the jury have to be unanimous on the verdict? What if there's one person who says the defendant is innocent and the others think they're guilty. They are in quarantine for as long as they will come up with a unanimous vote, so there's definitely peer pressure. There will always be people who'd rather come up with a quick verdict and go home back to normal life, rather than stay and do a decent job and really think about things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes I knew that sometimes there's only one judge deciding on the case, and sometimes there's a jury, but it's never been clear to me when they go for the other and when the other one. I suppose the attorneys of the defendant play a part of this, figuring out which way they would get the best verdict for their client? I've watched a lot of crime series with court drama (Matlock, Ally McBeal, Good Wife, Law & Order, etc, etc) and it's still a very blurry business to me :D There are just so many things and details to know. It's all very interesting though, and it makes good TV in my opinion.

 

Hi Frankie

In answer to the number of judges, they almost always use only one . I've heard of a few times where they have had a panel of 3 ,but I think when we get into that type of case,we may be talking about more big -time type crimes,such as big businesses, lawsuits regarding malpractice ,you know,the more involved type things that have to do with money, contracts and such .

Also to add to the confusion, it depends on what state you live in,and sometimes the county or city .Each one may have laws which are a little different. They are all the same basically ,regarding the person on trial is supposed to be "Innocent until proven Guilty" ,and everyone has the right to a fair trial .

Definitely ,the lawyers play a huge role in some of the decisions .One of the main ones which I always have trouble with is that the lawyer will either advise their client to take the stand, or NOT take the stand. This is usually based a lot on the personality of the person on trial,because some people can come across much more sympathetically than others. Some people tried for murder are actually found guilty based a lot on their lack of emotion or feelings on the stand . You may have heard of the case of Dr. Sam Sheppard ( I believe it took place in the late 50's ... ) up in Shaker Heights in our state . It's a fascinating case and many books have been written on it . They also made a tv show loosely based on it,and possibly a movie ,too,although I'm not a movie person,so don't keep up much in that area.

He was basically judged guilty by most people before he even got a trial,because he came from a rich family, all of them being doctors ,living in a house on the beach of Lake Erie ,his wife being murdered when she was so young,pretty and newly pregnant . I think most people back then were envious of their wealth ,but he also lacked emotion on the stand or in interviews . I may be among a very small minority, but I believe he was innocent . He did tell a pretty hard to believe version of events, but there are things that fit the story he told.

 

Money definitely talks, and as much as things are initially intended to be as fair as possible, as long as there are human beings involved, there's a possibility of corruption. There will always be good and bad people, and this shows in every aspect of life, not just the court cases. Now, why did I think of O. J. Simpson the second you mentioned people who are rich and famous... :rolleyes: I study English at a university and we have this American professor and we discussed the case once in class. I'm not sure if I got it right, but I think our professor said that in America you can try one case only once and the verdict stays. Is that possible? I think he said that O. J. could now basically say that he was in fact guilty but he can still walk free. And didn't he write a book called If I Did It. Why would he be so stupid?!

 

Yes, the OJ case is definitely a fairly recent one that I feel was totally biased .I believe he is 100 % guilty,but his jury was made up of a large number of his race who saw how handsome and famous he was,and refused to believe he could do such a terrible thing . The problem out there was ,too that he was Black ,married to a young pretty blonde girl,so race played a huge part in it . I often wonder if his wife would have been Black if it would have turned out a little differently .

As for why he was so stupid as to write the last book -- I think it was all money related. He may have gotten off innocent in the first case,but in the Civil Trial ,the jury found him guilty,and he owes huge sums of money to the Goldman family,although they have yet to see it .

He used most of his money hiring the lawyers he had,so was pretty low on income for someone who liked to live the highlife .

 

Yep, I know about this, this was also featured in Helter Skelter. It's all very baffling. The idea of trying to find people who don't know about the case beforehand and are therefore unbiased, when the actual case may have been in newspaper all over the country. I would think that it would prove to be a difficult task, and how the heck can they really know if someone's lying or not, about knowing about the case beforehand.

 

Yea,when huge crimes like that happen, it is usually blasted all over the country ,now much more than back then,having so much more news channels ,etc .

It is hard to find people who don't know anything at all about the case,so sometimes the lawyers file for a change of area,maybe the next county away .That all depends on the judge as to whether he allows a case to be moved or not .

 

And another thing that I don't like about juries: doesn't the jury have to be unanimous on the verdict? What if there's one person who says the defendant is innocent and the others think they're guilty. They are in quarantine for as long as they will come up with a unanimous vote, so there's definitely peer pressure. There will always be people who'd rather come up with a quick verdict and go home back to normal life, rather than stay and do a decent job and really think about things.

 

As for this, it's another scenario that can change -- some trials ,there is a mandatory rule that the jury must agree unanimously on the verdict .If they can't ,they come back and tell the judge, and most times he sends them back to deliberate some more to see of they can come to a decision. After a certain time ,if they can't, it's a hung jury and they have to retry the case all over with a new one .

There was a case a few years back that a guy had supposedly killed his wife and they had 3 trials,all with hung juries. They guy is walking around free today because I guess sooner or later, they give up on it, and hope that someone may come forward at some point with more evidence .

 

I could be wrong on this,but I do think different states may have different rules regarding murder cases . Some states need to have all 12 jurors agree, while others may only need a majority .I THINK the ones that need all to agree are in death penalty eligible cases .

 

You'd think that people stuck on these juries that can't agree would finally just give in and change their minds so they can go home,and I'm sure that has happened in some instances,but it seems that most people take the job very seriously and don't want to make the wrong decision ,so they will stick to their guns and never give in . I've seen lots of juries on the news ,when they agree to be interviewed later, they are very emotional about their decisions,often crying,and feeling terrible about the way the case went, or the decisions they had to make.

I'm with you and wouldn't want that much responsibility put on me .

 

As for not being able to retry a murder case ,that is called Double Jeopardy . That is almost always true, but there have been people found innocent ,not because they ARE but because the jury just didn't have enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they could say guilty.They may BELIEVE he was guilty,but have to have enough PROOF. They can't just go on feelings .

There are times when they CAN retry a person for a murder case if more evidence is found or another witness comes forward . They usually try to give enough time between arrest and trial so that any and all evidence can be gathered .

 

Holy smokes, I think I win for longest post of the day !!! Hope I'm not boring you silly ..

Edited by julie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Weave and thank you kindly for the welcome !

I see you have read 74 books --you must be a very speedy reader !

I wish I would have kept closer track of my own,but I'm not very organized sometimes .

 

Good to be among so many people with such a love of books,and everyone is so very friendly !

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...