Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "" video.

  1. And thanks to judicial immunity, there's likely no way of holding the judge accountable for that level of incompetence.
    5
  2. In the US, you typically don't have the right to compensation for a false conviction except in very specific situations. I do think that it ought to be automatic, unless the prosecution can prove that it isn't appropriate. For instance, if the defendant did something that caused the case to be lost, like destroying evidence or witness tampering.
    3
  3. In systems where the accused is presumed to be guilty, there's typically a much higher level of evidence involved before charges are brought. I do think that innocent until proven guilty is the better way of going, but it's not like they'll typically go to trial with the relatively weak amount of evidence that they do here and hope that the defense screws up or they can get a guilty plea.
    3
  4. That doesn't surprise me. I do think that if you're in jail longer than the maximum term, you should just be released without having to complete the proceedings. Plus, you should be compensated for the lost time as the whole issue now becomes whether or not you've got to have it on your record forever.
    3
  5. In the US, generally, you'll get credit for time served prior to the trial, so sometimes the convicted are released almost immediately when given credit for time served. Which is itself pretty screwed up because if they hadn't been found guilty, they likely wouldn't receive any compensation for being detained.
    2
  6.  @EebstertheGreat  In the US it's a moot point because roughly 95% of all felony convictions are the result of a plea deal where the prosecutors load up the case with as many charges as possible and allow the accused to plead guilty to only a few of them in exchange for a shorter time in prison. This happens whether or not the defendant is guilty and so many innocent people plead guilty that we even have a legal term to refer to those that plead guilty because they expect to be convicted, not because they're guilty. It's the Alford plea and it shouldn't exist in any system that has any interest in justice.
    2
  7. All systems have flaws in them, the issues we've got are because crime is used as a wedge issue to distract from the ultra wealthy that are robbing us blind.
    2
  8. It's not just that, but the conditions that we keep both those that are just accused as well as those that have been convicted is absolutely disgraceful.
    1
  9. In some countries, the penalties are some percentage of your wealth. It's how you get those half million Euro speeding tickets. I do think that we need to rewrite most of those laws to make it equal impact, rather than equal dollar figure.
    1
  10. It's not supposed to be constitutional in the US, we're supposed to have a right to a speedy trial. But, the courts have been packed with incompetent and outright corrupt judges that don't care aobut that.
    1
  11.  @XLightChanX  It's a tough situation as more pre-trial proceedings is probably a good thing for the parties involved, but somebody behind bars during that isn't just losing their freedom, they also have significantly limited ability to fight the charges. Being able to meet with your attorney whenever you need to, or even call them if there's a development is absolutely critical. Potentially so is the ability to move about the city, assuming that you aren't under an order restricting your movements.
    1
  12.  @Resi1ience  It's probably the most honest thing any tough on crime person has ever said.
    1