deepundergroundpoetry.com
Lions, Tigers and Bears: The Immoral Perversion Of The Morality Of Law
Lions: Prosecutors
Tigers: law enforcement officials i.e. police officers, sheriffs, state troopers and DEA
Bears: District Court Judges
How Those Spearheading The Judicial System Pervert Their Authority To Unjustly Convict Citizens.
“Law is directed to the common good, and human law is no exception. The promotion of virtue is necessary for the common good, and human laws are instruments in the promotion of virtue, for it is easier to find a few wise persons who can make good laws than to find many who, in the absence of laws, can judge correctly in each instance”. - Aristotle
Amendment VIII decrees that federal and state governments are prohibited from imposing excessive bail, and excessive fines. The decree also explicitly forbids federal and state governments from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, including torture on members of its public residents as ruled by The United States Supreme Court.
Moral law definition:
The rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience and that are not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States.
Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior. These guidelines may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable. For some people moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that should apply to everyone. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+Law
Americans by an ever increasing vast percentage have had past experiences or is currently experiencing an unpalatable amount of legal woes in which people of color and poor people alike are forced to accept the grotesque distortion of laws once created to be fundamentally sound and just. Laws which were once based on moral principles including and with respect to truth, conscientiousness and fairness has literally been eradicated, causing a great deal of frustration, anguish and unmeasurable agony to the rapidly growing population entangled in our legal system.
I know many of you have heard the song Lions, Tigers, and Bears by Jazmine Sullivan in which she proclaim that “I’m not scared of lions, and tigers and bears but I’m scared of loving you. And why do we love, love when love seems to hate us”. Well you must be asking yourself what does this song have to do with this article and I will try to explain within a contextual framework applicable with the experiences of black and poor people with regards to our patriotic love hate relationship with America and the American judicial system.
In my framework the role of the Lions will be represented by the Prosecutors from the District Attorneys offices, the Tigers by law enforcement officials i.e. police officers, sheriffs, and state troopers, and the Bears by Judges. The greatest fear when it comes to standing in front of judges (Bears) in criminal court proceedings for black Americans are the overlooked racist and immoral tactics (including the omission, suppression of critical evidence, and witnesses) actions (manufacturing of crimes, planting of evidence, and falsifying police reports) used to get people into the judicial system. Once individuals are embroiled inside the system many receive unfair, unjust and immoral sentences handed down by judges referencing historically biased rulings in former court cases which allowed the precedence for such travesties of justice to continue today in the first place.
Prosecuting Attorney: Definition and Role:
“Citing several cases in which The United States Supreme Court has explained in detail the role of attorneys know as prosecutors. These Prosecutors are part of the U.S. Department of Justice residing in both and federal and state executive branches.
“Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain and present the truth.” United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256 (1967) (Justice White, concurring and dissenting).
“The (prosecutor) is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” Berger v. United States, 295 US 78, 88-89 (1935)
By a moral code, by the rule of law and by ethics prosecutors must not lose sight of their duties to serve justice in dealing with defendants right to a fair, speedy and unbiased trial by playing by the rules set forth by the law and the Department of Justice Office of Prosecuting attorneys conduct of behavior mandate. Misconduct by prosecuting attorneys resulting in the wrongful convictions by perverting the law and relinquishing their commitment to ensure that the criminal process is fair in accordance with what the law demands which is that every defendant receives a fair criminal trial. Many times prosecutors in their quest for notoriety will act as Lions joining with a pack of two to three other lions for the hunt, but in this essay the pack will includes two different breed of animals, tigers (law enforcement) and bears (judges). Together they make a most formidable and deathly frightening conglomerate, the reapers of life and liberty. Many of these prosecuting attorneys are void of ethics, compassion, a sense of fair play and hypocritical in their moral stand point. They are utterly empty of empathy. They are far worse than the ghastly death eaters under the command of the Ministry of Defense (The Department of Justice) of the famed Harry Potter movies. They target, surround, intimidate, torture, isolate and manufacture crimes before viciously taking the liberties and lives of Blacks, Hispanics and poor Caucasian people.
In our judicial system it is often times common practice for prosecuting attorneys to cross the line in state courts seriously tainting a defendants right to a fair trail by putting the burden of proof of innocence not on the evidence and facts presented but by zealously advocating a verdict of guilt when they don’t fully and coherently explain the process of trial procedures, omit exculpatory evidence and suppress eye witness testimonies, perform unethical questioning of the defendant and the use of improper closing arguments blaming the defendant for not being knowledgeable about the law. The obligation to do what prosecuting attorneys are trained and sworn to do, are to present only the factual evidence and to make proper arguments during trial proceedings. To not do what is required by law and the statute of the office of the Department of Justice is a serious breach of contract in the ethical obligation and moral fiber of their persons, their job description and shows great disdain and a lack of respect for fairness, ethics, a sense of justice and human dignity. The quote by the Greek philosopher Plato on the banner of the Office of Professional Responsibility adorning its website states that “Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens”. Simply put if prosecuting attorneys do not have a true understanding of what justice is and the moral and ethical foundation in which the building blocks of truth, fairness, and a proprietary state of decorum which must exist from within then I really don’t see how they can fulfill the duties they were hired to do without making the American legal system seem unjust, biased and hypocritical.
Improper arguments usually suffer from one of the following defects: (1) They are not based on the evidence (misstating the evidence or expressing the prosecutor’s opinion); (2) They discuss the defendant exercising one of his rights (e.g., the right not to testify); (3) They attempt to minimize or shift the burden of proof; or (4) They do not help the jury decide the ultimate question. The author discusses improper arguments (though not the issue of misstating the law), and cites many of the cases that define the law. In summary; The state’s attorney’s duty to treat the defendant fairly applies to his argument to the jury as well as to the introduction of evidence.
Eight routes of failure for any legal system which makes it easy to pervert its laws
The lack of rules or law, which leads to ad hoc and inconsistent adjudication.
Failure to publicize or make known the rules of law.
Unclear or obscure legislation that is impossible to understand.
Retrospective legislation.
Contradictions in the law.
Demands that are beyond the power of the subjects and the ruled.
Unstable legislation (ex. daily revisions of laws).
Divergence between adjudication/administration and legislation.
Tigers: law enforcement officials i.e. police officers, sheriffs, state troopers and DEA
Bears: District Court Judges
How Those Spearheading The Judicial System Pervert Their Authority To Unjustly Convict Citizens.
“Law is directed to the common good, and human law is no exception. The promotion of virtue is necessary for the common good, and human laws are instruments in the promotion of virtue, for it is easier to find a few wise persons who can make good laws than to find many who, in the absence of laws, can judge correctly in each instance”. - Aristotle
Amendment VIII decrees that federal and state governments are prohibited from imposing excessive bail, and excessive fines. The decree also explicitly forbids federal and state governments from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments, including torture on members of its public residents as ruled by The United States Supreme Court.
Moral law definition:
The rules of behavior an individual or a group may follow out of personal conscience and that are not necessarily part of legislated law in the United States.
Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior. These guidelines may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable. For some people moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that should apply to everyone. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+Law
Americans by an ever increasing vast percentage have had past experiences or is currently experiencing an unpalatable amount of legal woes in which people of color and poor people alike are forced to accept the grotesque distortion of laws once created to be fundamentally sound and just. Laws which were once based on moral principles including and with respect to truth, conscientiousness and fairness has literally been eradicated, causing a great deal of frustration, anguish and unmeasurable agony to the rapidly growing population entangled in our legal system.
I know many of you have heard the song Lions, Tigers, and Bears by Jazmine Sullivan in which she proclaim that “I’m not scared of lions, and tigers and bears but I’m scared of loving you. And why do we love, love when love seems to hate us”. Well you must be asking yourself what does this song have to do with this article and I will try to explain within a contextual framework applicable with the experiences of black and poor people with regards to our patriotic love hate relationship with America and the American judicial system.
In my framework the role of the Lions will be represented by the Prosecutors from the District Attorneys offices, the Tigers by law enforcement officials i.e. police officers, sheriffs, and state troopers, and the Bears by Judges. The greatest fear when it comes to standing in front of judges (Bears) in criminal court proceedings for black Americans are the overlooked racist and immoral tactics (including the omission, suppression of critical evidence, and witnesses) actions (manufacturing of crimes, planting of evidence, and falsifying police reports) used to get people into the judicial system. Once individuals are embroiled inside the system many receive unfair, unjust and immoral sentences handed down by judges referencing historically biased rulings in former court cases which allowed the precedence for such travesties of justice to continue today in the first place.
Prosecuting Attorney: Definition and Role:
“Citing several cases in which The United States Supreme Court has explained in detail the role of attorneys know as prosecutors. These Prosecutors are part of the U.S. Department of Justice residing in both and federal and state executive branches.
“Law enforcement officers have the obligation to convict the guilty and to make sure they do not convict the innocent. They must be dedicated to making the criminal trial a procedure for the ascertainment of the true facts surrounding the commission of the crime. To this extent, our so-called adversary system is not adversary at all; nor should it be. But defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain and present the truth.” United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 256 (1967) (Justice White, concurring and dissenting).
“The (prosecutor) is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.” Berger v. United States, 295 US 78, 88-89 (1935)
By a moral code, by the rule of law and by ethics prosecutors must not lose sight of their duties to serve justice in dealing with defendants right to a fair, speedy and unbiased trial by playing by the rules set forth by the law and the Department of Justice Office of Prosecuting attorneys conduct of behavior mandate. Misconduct by prosecuting attorneys resulting in the wrongful convictions by perverting the law and relinquishing their commitment to ensure that the criminal process is fair in accordance with what the law demands which is that every defendant receives a fair criminal trial. Many times prosecutors in their quest for notoriety will act as Lions joining with a pack of two to three other lions for the hunt, but in this essay the pack will includes two different breed of animals, tigers (law enforcement) and bears (judges). Together they make a most formidable and deathly frightening conglomerate, the reapers of life and liberty. Many of these prosecuting attorneys are void of ethics, compassion, a sense of fair play and hypocritical in their moral stand point. They are utterly empty of empathy. They are far worse than the ghastly death eaters under the command of the Ministry of Defense (The Department of Justice) of the famed Harry Potter movies. They target, surround, intimidate, torture, isolate and manufacture crimes before viciously taking the liberties and lives of Blacks, Hispanics and poor Caucasian people.
In our judicial system it is often times common practice for prosecuting attorneys to cross the line in state courts seriously tainting a defendants right to a fair trail by putting the burden of proof of innocence not on the evidence and facts presented but by zealously advocating a verdict of guilt when they don’t fully and coherently explain the process of trial procedures, omit exculpatory evidence and suppress eye witness testimonies, perform unethical questioning of the defendant and the use of improper closing arguments blaming the defendant for not being knowledgeable about the law. The obligation to do what prosecuting attorneys are trained and sworn to do, are to present only the factual evidence and to make proper arguments during trial proceedings. To not do what is required by law and the statute of the office of the Department of Justice is a serious breach of contract in the ethical obligation and moral fiber of their persons, their job description and shows great disdain and a lack of respect for fairness, ethics, a sense of justice and human dignity. The quote by the Greek philosopher Plato on the banner of the Office of Professional Responsibility adorning its website states that “Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens”. Simply put if prosecuting attorneys do not have a true understanding of what justice is and the moral and ethical foundation in which the building blocks of truth, fairness, and a proprietary state of decorum which must exist from within then I really don’t see how they can fulfill the duties they were hired to do without making the American legal system seem unjust, biased and hypocritical.
Improper arguments usually suffer from one of the following defects: (1) They are not based on the evidence (misstating the evidence or expressing the prosecutor’s opinion); (2) They discuss the defendant exercising one of his rights (e.g., the right not to testify); (3) They attempt to minimize or shift the burden of proof; or (4) They do not help the jury decide the ultimate question. The author discusses improper arguments (though not the issue of misstating the law), and cites many of the cases that define the law. In summary; The state’s attorney’s duty to treat the defendant fairly applies to his argument to the jury as well as to the introduction of evidence.
Eight routes of failure for any legal system which makes it easy to pervert its laws
The lack of rules or law, which leads to ad hoc and inconsistent adjudication.
Failure to publicize or make known the rules of law.
Unclear or obscure legislation that is impossible to understand.
Retrospective legislation.
Contradictions in the law.
Demands that are beyond the power of the subjects and the ruled.
Unstable legislation (ex. daily revisions of laws).
Divergence between adjudication/administration and legislation.
Published 20th May 2020
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 1
reads 1186
Commenting Preference:
The author is looking for friendly feedback.
26th May 2020 11:30pm
