Stop decimating the Constitution

The creation of a life supporting system; a positive environment and a humanistic society has been best idealized, described and structured no better than in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The intentions were without distinctions of treatment differing on characteristics of people. The use of interpretation has radically changed the original precept. There are several parts of the government affected however I will start with one: The Justice Branch. First, the government was to be divided into three branches for checks and balance system. The Legislative Branch is elected by the people. The people can decide if a change should be made. The head of the Executive Branch is elected by the people. The people can decide if a change should be made. The Judicial Branch is appointed by those in office who insure the ultimate portion of the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) has the attitude and beliefs that support their positions. The justices are appointed for a lifetime. The people have no choice or control. This raises questions about this branch being held accountable. The Supreme Court cannot make laws nor is it supposed to decide what is fair, positive, negative, right or wrong. It is supposed to rule only if the item or issue is constitutional. Prosecutors (Usually in the D. A. office) are the most involved to make justice one sided. Their responsibility is to support justice be served. Whenever they describe their effectiveness, it is by stating how many convictions they have. As a result they have influenced and manipulated the system so it is structured to support convictions. Some examples: 1. If a person is guilty until innocent, how come some are incarcerated for long periods of time before trial. I am particularly speaking about those who do not appear or have the means to run and pose no threat to society 2. The Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. The process has been molded so complex that speed is not an issue. In fact they too often threaten a person with so much time in jail trying to get a confession. Guilty until proven innocent. 3. With mandatory sentencing there is only one person who can determine what the sentence is going to be. Not the judge not the jury. The prosecutors add multiple charges and negotiate a reduction for a confession. Why charge and drop? Are they guilty or not? A person that is serving a sentence or a person charged with a crime is sometimes offered less punishment if they do what the prosecution asks. They do not get punished as much as others for the same crime. A person who is innocent can be intimidated by the thought that they cannot go to work; see family; eat when hungry; see the outdoors; be safe from assault and bodily harm. In fact when negotiating, often the prosecutor describes these factors. Guilty until proven innocent. 4. Prosecutors who lose a case often say the jury said not guilty but not innocent. When the jury is instructed they are told to determine guilty or not guilty. No one said innocent was a choice. 5. After a trial when evidence appears or seemingly unfairness has occurred, the prosecutor most often says the jury found them guilty so that is that. When the prosecutor disagrees with an innocent verdict, they do not say the jury said innocent so that is that. 6. The prosecutors agree with gathering and storing DNA to help find the guilty. They also disagree with and fight to prevent testing DNA of people in prison to see if the right criminal is being punished. They often try to prevent DNA of convicted people from being released to defenders. Is this justice? When a person has been proved to have been wrongly convicted, the prosecutor does not apologize or offer any words of empathy. The innocent person still must answer on forms and applications that they were convicted of a felony. If it was proved a wrong decision, why must a person have to explain why it is still on their record? The punishment is not over. Let me cite one of many examples: Recent DNA testing has proven the innocence of 10 men from Cook County, Illinois who were forced to confess as children to crimes they didn't commit. Some of them have been imprisoned for nearly 20 years. Despite overwhelming genetic evidence that has linked the crimes to the real killers, state officials have refused to recognize the innocence of these men‚ï¿½aï¿½ State attorney Anita Alvarez refuses to vacate the sentences, retry, allow bail, release or give any justice to the people proven innocent. If she does not believe DNA to be conclusive evidence, why does she present it in cases she is asking for a conviction? So many people were proven innocent in Illinois that the death penalty was suspended for a while. In Dallas the D.A. allocated money, records, resources, access to the innocence project to look at inmates cases. Several were found to be innocent and the judge apologized for the injustice and said they could leave court and go home free without having to return to jail. Now that is the Justice System insuring justice be done. 7. The recent manipulation by prosecutors is so underhanded it is evil. A rebuttal to the closing argument! The person who speaks last is the most influential among other things. Since the accused is there to defend them selves, they should have at least fairness. For example the defense should be able to waive closing second and then open and rebut. One of the ways I suggest could be instituted to help remove some of the issues I have stated about prosecutors would be to amend their duties. The D.A.ï¿½ï¿½a‚ï¿½a„ï¿½s office could be responsible for both the prosecution and the defense. Every other case, month, quarter or an established period, each assistant D.A. would change sides. This way it would reduce the importance of winning statistics; make all of the same resources (info, police availability, labs, testing, fiscal matters, etc.) available to both sides which is equal justice. When the accused receives documents ordering court appearance or explanation of charges, some of it is in Latin. Why? The system is set up so a person with special information must be used and the ability to pay determines the type and quality available to receive justice. There are only two sets that have no legal training or status: the defendant and the jury. Ones future will be determined and the other makes the decision. Why are they the only two not present when the case is discussed (sidebar or in chambers). The process is supposed to be open and the defendant should be aware of all information. Whatever happens in court should have transparency but there are even things that happen that the Court Reporter is told not to put on record. Thank you for accepting the debate. First, let me address incorrect info. The government cannot change the Constitution any time it wants. The only way it can be changed is for two thirds of both houses of Congress to vote to propose an amendment or for two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.) Then it only becomes law if it is ratified and Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition. The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified. My stated issues have nothing to do with legally changing the Constitution it has to do with the interpretation. The only change I have a problem with is the last amendment (1992) where Congress found a loophole and made an amendment automatically giving itself a yearly cost of living increase. The loophole kept the States from being able to ratify. No where else does the document deal with salary. No one else is guaranteed a cost of living increase and no one else determines their own salary in the Federal Government. So do you realize the Government does not have the right to amend the Constitution any way it sees fit? (…of the people, for the people, by the people). 1.No I do not want any guilty person walking around, period. Again, my questioning is regarding the process by which they are judged not the consequences. That is a different story. (In Texas a judge sentenced a teen to 25 years for the possession of one joint of marijuana and a few years later sentenced his own teenage son to 5 years probation for the possession of 3 kilos. In Florida a judge sentenced a heavy drug dealer to probation because "as a skinny white person, he will not survive in jail". Although it difficult now to plead insanity, in California a man served 6 months after being convicted of killing two people as a result of eating too many Twinkies). No I don't want any of them walking the streets, but they are because of interpretation, but they are. 2.I said or suggested nothing about increasing time and complexity of any trial, in fact I quoted the Constitution about the "right to a speedy trial and that has not been changed. Your assumption for some reason is different. Now you read number one and the Constitution as to the validity of your number one. 3.I must not be communicating my opinions very Whether the person has good or bad in them has nothing to do with the conditions or manner the confession was obtained. I personally believe that Amanda Know is innocent and either she did not confess or did so to relieve her situation. I do not care if I am in Italy or jail in my downtown, if confessing would allow me to go home to my family instead of spending four years locked up, pass the pen. …a voice in the punishment? NO! The law, judge and jury decide the punishment. Read the law. 4.Innocent until proven guilty. Suspicion is not evidence. 5.Instead of trying to prove one guilty the prosecutor should be trying to insure justice is done. (Why do you always refer to the prosecutor as "he"? Just curious. 6.I do not think we are going to agree on the responsibility of officers of the court. Pass. 7.If my "argument is irrelevant" why are you debating me?