There is a very disturbing irony among the "strict constructionist" Screaming Teabagger types. One minute, they insist that our government has subverted the Constitution, that we must return to the Founders' "intent" (whatever that means), that we must hold true to the Constitution as it is written, never venturing away from the most narrow, most slavish devotion to the precise letter of the law.

But when it comes to criminal cases, many of the same people say "who gives a damn, the defendent is a piece of shit anyway."

If you really are a stickler for the law of the land, wouldn't you be at least a little disturbed by this nonchalant, fuck-it approach to justice? Wouldn't you prefer to see prosecutors and police going as far as possible to get it right?

This isn't about Sullivan for crying out loud. It's about a system of justice that doesn't attempt to achieve actual justice. It strives for just "close enough," as if the rest of us have nothing to worry about with "close enough."

Yep, it's just like the health care reform debate. Their attitude is: fuck them, I've got mine. But Lord help you if you do get sick--I mean really sick--under our current system.

Lord help you, too, if you or anyone you care about is treated by our justice system the way Sullivan was--whether you're guilty or innocent.

that we must hold true to the Constitution as it is written, never venturing away from the most narrow, most slavish devotion to the precise letter of the law.

True

But when it comes to criminal cases, many of the same people say "who gives a damn, the defendent is a piece of shit anyway."

You answer your own question. The criminal justice system has been so corrupted by liberals that it is a farce. Here is the logic- if we are going to deviate from the Constitution why not go right than hang a left.

If you really are a stickler for the law of the land, wouldn't you be at least a little disturbed by this nonchalant, fuck-it approach to justice?

The law of the land is corrupt by terrible interpretations of the Constitution remember. I wouldn't say it is s "nonchalant fuck-it" approach. It is more of a "is there a crime so horrible that liberals would want to punish using the full extent of the law?" The answer of course is no if the perp is black, latino, muslin, or any minority and yes it is a white male. If this was a white 14 year old no one would care.

Wouldn't you prefer to see prosecutors and police going as far as possible to get it right?

Sure but liberals will not let them take the necessary measures to do so. The police and prosecutes have their hands tied. The CJ system is in such a way that it is a joke- it is designed to protect citizens from state abuse and not designed to purse justice. That is the way it is.

as and example- if a cop doesn't read you your rights, even if you did the crime, makes you not guilt? It is not about justice.

It's about a system of justice that doesn't attempt to achieve actual justice.

I agree. In order to get justice many rights would have to be pulled back.

It strives for just "close enough," as if the rest of us have nothing to worry about with "close enough."

I think the hurdles are all ready too high for conviction and you want to raise them. It's far from perfect and it all ready leans by far in favor of the defendant than the victim. Too bad this old woman did have a gun to blow all their heads off when they entered the home the first time. Problem solved.

It's called the "burden" of proof, because it's not supposed to be easy.

Defendants' rights are your rights too. Even if you never find yourself in the defendant's chair.

Wow Gunsmoke, it must be easy to have a black and white worldview when you are so ignorant of the things you talk about. You say that police and prosecutors have their hands tied. But did you know that 95% of people indicted for crimes plead guilty? So right off the bat police and prosecutors have a 95% conviction rate, plus several more percentage points for convictions at trial. Hell, the very article you're commenting on is about how it can be too easy for prosecutors to get more "justice" than they actually wanted.

Furthermore, failure to give Miranda warnings doesn't make a defendant not guilty, as you mistakenly say. It just means that the government can't use any statements that the defendant makes before the warning against him at trial. But you didn't know that did you?

You say you want to follow the Constitution, but then complain that the criminal justice system is designed to protect citizens from state abuse rather than achieve justice (as if those two are mutually exclusive). But the Bill of Rights is specifically written to protect citizens, even those guilty of crimes, from state abuse. So which is it? Follow the Constitution as written or blindly follow "justice", no matter who gets thrown under the bus to get it?

If you're going to reply to this, please try to refrain from talking about "the liberals." You seem to use that as your fallback complaint when you obviously don't even know what it is you are so mad about.

Yeah, I should listen to the rantings of this guy about the criminal justice system when he thinks that failure to read Miranda means the case is automatically dismissed. Go take a crim law course at your local cc.