Criminal Justice Or Criminal's Justice System

Having worked in the criminal justice system, I can tell you; the system is stacked in favor for some and against others. It's not based on fairness and its not based on equality. Its not based on the good of society and it cares little about the difference between right and wrong. It is based around money, theatrics, and the shifting of liability. Good people working inside the system try, sometimes successfully, to bring good outcomes to terrible circumstances. The system is designed in such a way, despite these people's best efforts, they usually have to accept they will not be able to help those wronged. More gut-wrenching is that they will have to help and even protect offenders from victims. The system defines justice to serve its own needs. There is no consistency in what justice is. Its not based on the loss suffered by the victim. Its not based on the loss of survivors. Its not based on the crime committed. Now on the surface, one might argue that laws are attached to penalties that correspond with violations and that would be accurate. Where the system brakes-down is in the application of the system. Judges and prosecutors have to be more concerned not to upset interest groups or incur onslaughts of frivolous lawsuits. The result is justice isn't served to victims.

"Kate Steinle was walking on a busy pier in San Francisco with her father when there was a single popping sound in the air. She fell to the ground, struck by a bullet, the victim of what police say appears to be a random killing." (CNN.com) "A single shot hit Steinle, 32, in the back and went through her heart. Forensics analysts determined the bullet ricocheted off the ground before it struck her." (The San Fransisco Chronicle) "Lopez-Sanchez admitted firing the gun, a police sergeant testified earlier in the week."(The Mercurey News) A Murder charge requires that malicious intent be proven but taking part in negligent behavior can be seen as intent. That is supported by California Law. More appropriately though, negligent actions that result in the death of another person is a specific crime. It is the exact situation described as manslaughter by California Penal Code 192.

"Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Involuntary-in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle."

1. No one contests that the killing was unlawful but the defense implies that the killers action could have been seen as lawful. Manslaughter still applies either way.
2. The defense claims the killing was accidental and without malice.
3. The defense does not deny the offender was committing at least a criminal offense because he was in the country illegally despite being deported five times previously for felonious crimes against the laws of the United States and individual criminal laws from multiple States.
4. The defense admits the offender possessed a firearm despite being a felon. That in it self is a crime.
5. The defense admits the offender interacted with the gun causing the gun to fire and that directly resulted in the victim's unintended death.

This is the exact definition of Involuntary Manslaughter as it is defined in the California Penal Code. The fact that the offender was acquitted and suffered no charges or penalty for his crime is a glaring example that the Criminal Justice System is set up to favor special interest groups and criminals. Our system is an adversarial system that allows and promotes trickery and loophole manipulation as the tactics of choice. "Matt Gonzalez of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office said congressional legislation prompted by Steinle’s death, and the national attention it is attracting, is making it harder for his client, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, to receive a fair trial." It is completely ignored that the criminal client wouldn't have to worry about how our Country's laws were negatively effecting him, had he obeyed and respected those laws in the first place. Had he heeded the previous five, more than fair, interactions he had with the criminal justice system he would not be in this situation now and a a local father would have been spared holding his daughter as she bled out on to a peer in the "Sanctuary City" of San Fransisco.

This is an example of the laws being written and manipulated to serve beasts that prey on innocent communities. This is a difficult, frustrating, and demoralizing situation for our law enforcement and criminal justice professionals despite their dedication to protecting society. It is also a significant cause of the public's distrust and lack of tolerance for those who work within the system. As if this type of scenario wasn't enough, we have an equally tragic scenario playing out in Louisiana.

We have prosecutors and Judges that completely violate their oaths as officers of the court by cutting unimaginable deals in order to get results, bolster their stats, and appease those who feel child molestation is some form of small problem, form of self expression, or some how not worthy of strict consequences. This month Louisiana got an example of how dangerous society could get if they were fed up with what appears to be incompetent, unethical, and negligent actions taken by prosecutors and Judges. A former boyfriend, of the victim's mother, who raised and allegedly molested, the victim for 10 years, pleaded "no contest" to charges of sexually molesting the girl as a child (from age 4 to 12). He received a sentence that amounted to five years probation. He received credit for 19 days served in a detention facility awaiting release. This predator that wouldn't confirm or deny that he molested a child, was let go with what barely amounts to a slap on the hand for his egregious behavior. "A no contest plea means the defendant neither disputes nor admits to doing the crime." You either did or didn't molest a child. If you didn't molest a child, innocent people refute those horrible allegations and a court cant prove something happened if it didn't. SO either the court knew he was guilty and royally neglected their duty and the safety and society or they didn't think he did it and prosecuted him with insufficient evidence. Either way is negligent and facilitated a great deal of damage to innocent people and the death of an individual. A child molester who is guilty, knows they did it and has to decide wether to fight the charge or make a deal. Thats where "No Contest pleas" come in. The child molester gets to get off easy and the prosecutor gets to still get a mark in "Win" column. Everybody wins. Or do they"

The boyfriend of the victim, a young man from Walker, Louisiana was just found guilty of second-degree murder. The young man will receive a mandatory life sentence for killing the man who pleaded "No Contest"to the allegations of molestation. The boyfriend of the molested girl, was so outraged by the courts lack of respect, protection, and faithfulness to his girlfriend, that he killed the man that hurt her. The man explained, The molester used his girlfriend as a child “sex slave”, and he felt he had to protect her from him because the criminal justice system failed to do so. The The female child molestation victim, testified that she punched the man before the boyfriend killed the man. She punched him 10 to 15 times while her boyfriend had the man in a headlock on the floor. Both testified that they did not intend to kill the man. The young man claimed he only intended to make the alleged child molester feel the pain he had inflicted upon his girlfriend as a child. Both testified that the victim lunged toward them and a struggle issued that escalated and resulted in the alleged child molester being killed.

One accused child molester is dead because he was released. One man, avenging the molestation of his girlfriend, is going to jail for life. One woman who was molested as a child is going to jail for forty years, on manslaughter charges, for participating in actions that resulted in the death of her assailant. One completely innocent woman is dead because she was on the wrong peer at the wrong time. One five time felon who admits to killing her, walks free from a court of law. All of these incidents would be completely different if the criminal justice system worked. In a functioning system where justice and the good of society was the focus, these situations would have been handled differently and the outcomes would have been different. The system sacrificed three people who had potential to be productive members of society in exchange for two violent criminals that preyed on society.

The accused child molester said, "No Contest." The murderer in California said,"The killing was an accident." Both men are released by the criminal justice system. District Attorney Hillar Moore III, in the case of the molester, argued against the vigilante justice saying, “You don’t want people going out and taking justice into their own hands. If the courts would stop making plea deals with child molesters and letting murderers go free, maybe people would be less likely to resort to seeking justice themselves. If the public felt like those responsible for their protection were up to the task that might discourage the occasional impulse felt by those that the justice system fails. The system innocent productive members of society to protect two that preyed on society. Explain the math to me. How does that benefit society? How does that protect our society? How does that bring justice?