Legally Stunned – When the Legal System doesn’t Make Sense
83Question
Do you know why there is an allergen warning on Jars of peanuts that say, "WARNING: May contain traces of nuts."
Answer: It's there to prevent a lawsuit.
Ridiculous Law Suits
Sometimes the Law doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Example, how can a thief sue a Homeowner for getting bitten by the dog, while he was trying to break into his home and the thief wins the case?
This happened in America and the Judge told him, he should've posted a sign that said, "beware of dog". The Homeowner had to pay for the burglar's medical bills.
I’m sure we all remember that case in the UK, sometime ago where a Homeowner shot a thief and he (the homeowner) ended up going to prison for it. Then there’s the tobacco issue where some smokers are suing tobacco companies and winning cases for having cancer and other health problems.
Only recently -The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled that cigarette smokers who have suffered no apparent injuries to their health may bring a lawsuit to force tobacco makers to pay for medical monitoring to scan for cancer that may develop in the future.
'Healthy' Smokers Win Landmark Tobacco Ruling – Oct 09
My Hotdog Story
O.K now don’t laugh. This is just “minor”. I was with my friends in a Canteen somewhere and bought a Hotdog. As I lifted it to eat, the hotdog fell out and dropped on the floor. I calmly walked up to the canteen and told them my hot dog fell on the floor and politely asked for another one. Did they give it to me? Yes, with a smile and no extra charge.
Walking back to my seat, I thought to myself, it was nice of them to give me another one because it clearly was my fault. It wasn’t like there was an earthquake and the hotdog missed my mouth. My point – I’m used to living in a society where you can make ridiculous claims.
Security Men
In the UK, Security men are not allowed to touch or hold shoplifters. They may just walk up to them and say “we need to check your bags please” or they could maybe block their way and ask them to politely step aside or inside. If they are outside, they are asked politely to return the goods back to the shop. I was discussing this with some friends and said to them - very soon the Security Officer will say to the thief “Please sit down, the Police are on their way. Would you like a cup of coffee while you are waiting?”
Family Issues
This one upsets me the most. A parent smacks their child lightly. The child calls the police and reports it. Before you know it, the police, the social services are all involved and the kid ends up in Foster care. I hear these stories and it’s happened to someone I know.
Apparently the social services can put words in a kid’s mouth. E.g. During Interrogation "so your mum slapped you hard?" and the kid’s thinking and nearly agrees “a little bit hard” they reply. Social worker says “and you cried?". Even if the kid didn’t cry, she’d nod her head and most of these kids get moved from one foster home to another which gives them a bad foundation in life.
The person who I know, that it happened to – luckily for them, the child wasn’t getting on with the Foster parents and requested to return to her parents. The parents were nearly put on a Child abusers list, which would have affected their medical careers – all because it’s acceptable to call the police on one’s parents. I hear some kids divorce their parents, but I won't go there in this Hub.
.
Finally, I’ll leave you with a Joke, I read on a Coffee mug” a few days ago.
Police Officer pulls over Driver and says to him: “Sir, could you blow into this bag please.”
Driver: Puzzled, because he hadn’t done anything wrong, asks “why Officer”?
Police Officer: “My Chips are hot!”.
.
http://hubpages.com/hub/WRONGFUL-COVICTIONS
.
One Man's Notice for Thieves who Sue
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
What a sad story. Worst case scenario - not just put in prison but executed. I wonder how this could happen though. Didn't he have a good lawyer or couldn't his family and friends have done more to acquit him? I hope there are laws in place to prevent this type of thing from happening. It's a waste of innocent lives.
Thanks for your comments.
Ralph, is right on target with Scalia’s attitude.
A decision by our Supreme Court concluded,(by a 5-4 ruling) that, “The finality of a conviction is more important than making sure the right person was convicted.”
This attitude concerning innocence should scare the hell out of everyone! In my opinion, the justice’s reasoning for their decision is a disgrace to the position they hold…
http://hubpages.com/hub/Legally-Stunned-When-the-L
Justice Antonin Scalia (using an Oregon prosecutor’s questionable data) felt that even 1% of false convictions were acceptable stating that he was satisfied with the judicial system. He also stated, “One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly.” He wrote, “That is a truism, not a revelation.”
http://hubpages.com/hub/WRONGFUL-COVICTIONS
Like our government, our Supreme Court Justices should have term limits. Scalia, is a perfect example of the “God Complex”, they seem to develop over a lifetime appointment.
Cheers Nancy. Thanks for your comments, explaining more of the situ; It is a scary situation. I have pasted your link in the Hub.
Regards.
There are many silly laws but I don't think the tobacco laws fit. These companies have known for a half of a century that they are peddling poison and they have used every trick in the book to get people hooked. The purposely sponsor music events aimed at teenagers and use very marketing tool to attract kids to smoking. They are a bane I'm in favor of any law that slaps them down.
Thanks Lady E
It was great reading a hub with a bit of humor after all the more serious DV hubs this week!
Thanks for sharing!
Wonderful and informative
Ralph, the death penalty has outraged me for years and this whole busniness of not allowing prisoners to get DNA testing when it is finally available and could prove them innocent is outrageous - I guess the justice system, once again, proves it is not so just after all.
Lady E - thank your lucky stars the UK is a kinder more gentle nation in these cases you mention. :)
* Hi Pete, you have got a point there. Infact, I think the Tobacco companies should be banned from advertising.
Thanks. I appreciate your comments.
* Hi Laura, lovely to hear from you. Yes, those DV Hubs are a bit sad but have to be written to help people. I hope the ones you wrote, help a lot of people. Thanks for your comments. :)
* Drcrischasse - thanks so much for stopping and for your comments.
* Kartika - thanks for your comments. It's interesting to see the way different countries deal with crime/Justice.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs when you choose your friends because they DON'T make a habit of suing people, but in some cases that actually is a deciding factor on whether or not to invited them to dinner or a party.
It's definitely gone to the point of ridiculous with some folks.
It's alarming to hear decisions will not get reconsidered when proof for otherwise is supplied. I agree that people in leadership positions should pass stringent mental health assessments. Great Hub. :)
No, I could start a hub just on some real bone-headed cases that were ruled the wrong way. I was beaten (but not abused, there is a difference) by my parents and I deserved everything single head slap! If I could go back in time, I'd probably put myself in a head-lock :D Thanks for a great hub, Lady_E.
Some laws are really funny which make me think that we really live in a funny world.Yet there are many silly laws which can ruin the life of innocents like being listed as child abusing parents incidents.I think law makers need to reassess some law so as innocent people get the justice. Elena,surely you are lucky enough to get another hotdog;in my place it's not possible.thanks.
**Hello Duchess,
Oh Dear! I can't believe the world has come to that - choosing friends that won't make a habit of suing you. Lovely to read from you. :)
** Thanks Damescribe, I agree with you. Next time a Judge is being interviewed for his Job, I think I should be on the interview Panel to make sure he is able promote Justice. :)
** Thanks Dohn, I understand you - "spare the rod and spoil the child". Nice to hear from you. :)
** Lol Andromida. You are right. In other Countries they definitely would ask me to pay for another Hotdog. Thanks for your comments. :)
Things happen differently in different places. All these are direct opposite of what obtains in my country, Nigeria. Thanks for sharing.
Hello LadyE How are you sweets. I loved this hub very darling yet informative. Way big thumbs up. The picture is fantastic. OMG I love it. So true. Thank you for being my loyal fan and visiting my hub and inspiring me as well. I pray you are blessed 100 fold. You touch many lives. I still have an idea, it is obvious my thought process takes a while but I will share one day soon. Your widget is beautiful. What gorgeous skin and the hair wild woman, I love it. Well hp angel cheers for 2day. I love ya, stay blessed. Your writing is powerful and sincere.
** Thanks for your Comments Philipo, you are right. :)
Hi Skye2day, my HP Angel.
Lovely to hear from you and thanks for your beautiful, encouraging comments. I'm still blushing. lol.
It's good to have you back, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has missed your presence. You are in my thoughts, as to what you emailed me. You have a Blessed home.
Best Wishes xx.
Ralph Deeds says:
3 weeks ago
At least this doesn't happen in the UK
Dahlia Lithwick
Innocent Until Executed
We have no right to exoneration.
Published Sep 3, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Sep 14, 2009
For years, death-penalty opponents and supporters have been working their way toward a moment in which each side would rethink things. They were seeking a case in which a clearly innocent defendant was wrongly put to death. In a 2005 Supreme Court case that actually had nothing to do with the execution of innocents, Justices David Souter and Antonin Scalia tangled over the possibility that such a creature even existed. Souter fretted that "the period starting in 1989 has seen repeated exonerations of convicts under death sentences, in numbers never imagined before the development of DNA tests." To which Scalia retorted: "The dissent makes much of the newfound capacity of DNA testing to establish innocence. But in every case of an executed defendant of which I am aware, that technology has confirmed guilt." Scalia went on to blast "sanctimonious" death-penalty opponents and a 1987 study on innocent exonerations whose "obsolescence began at the moment of publication," then concluded that there was not "a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit."
This suggested that if anyone found such a case, the Scalias of the world would rethink matters. As of today, the Innocence Project, a national organization dedicated to exonerating the wrongfully convicted through DNA testing, claims there have been 241 postconviction DNA exonerations, of which 17 were former death-row inmates spared execution. The gap between their facts and Scalia's widens every year. And now we may have found that case of an innocent put to death: Cameron Todd Willingham, executed by the state of Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a 1991 house fire that killed his three young daughters.
David Grann, who wrote a remarkable piece about the case in last week's New Yorker, sifted through the evidence against Willingham to reveal that the entire prosecution was a train wreck. And at every step in his appeal, Willingham's claims of innocence were met with the response that he'd already had more than enough due process for a baby killer.
But you needn't take Grann's word for it. In 2004 Gerald Hurst, an acclaimed scientist and fire investigator, conducted an independent investigation of the evidence in the Willingham case and came away with little doubt that it was an accidental fire—likely caused by a space heater or bad wiring. Hurst found no evidence of arson, and wrote a report to try to stay the execution. According to documents obtained by the Innocence Project, it appears nobody at the state Board of Pardons and Paroles or the Texas governor's office even took note of Hurst's conclusions. Just before Willingham was executed, he told the Associated Press, "[T]he most distressing thing is the state of Texas will kill an innocent man and doesn't care they're making a mistake."
Since Willingham's death, two other independent inquiries found no evidence of arson. In 2007 the state of Texas commissioned another renowned arson expert, Craig Beyler, to examine the Willingham evidence. Beyler's report, issued two weeks ago, concluded that investigators had no scientific basis for claiming the fire was arson.
One might think that all this would give a boost to death-penalty opponents, who have long contended that conclusive proof of an innocent murdered by the state would fundamentally change the debate. But that was before the goalposts began to shift this summer. In June, by a 5–4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled that a prisoner did not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence in police files, even at his own expense. "A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. And two months later, Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas went even further when the Supreme Court ordered a new hearing in Troy Davis's murder case, after seven of nine eyewitnesses recanted their testimony. Justice Scalia, dissenting from that order, wrote for himself and Thomas, "[T]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."
As a constitutional matter, Scalia's assertion is not wrong. The court has never found a constitutional right for the actually innocent to be free from execution. When the court flirted with the question in 1993, a majority ruled against the accused, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist left open the possibility that it may be unconstitutional to execute someone with a "truly persuasive demonstration" of innocence. Now, in Scalia's America, the Cameron Todd Willingham whose very existence was once in doubt is legally irrelevant. We may execute a man for an accidental house fire, while the Constitution itself stands silently by.
Lithwick also writes for slate.com.