"Criminals have too many rights"

"Things never looked so bad for the credibility of the legal system in the eyes of honest, observant citizens."

I'd be interested in what that report finds.

As for me, the prevalence of DNA acquittals is enough for me to look at our "justice system" with a jaundiced eye.

There is no defense from a false accusation or false evidence. Any system that depends on simply convincing 12 rubes that something is true is bound to have some problems.

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in DNA aquittals either. All DNA shows is that the samples match or don't. It says nothing about samples that were not considered.

In cases of gang rapes, the dominant sample detected may not be that of the accused, but does not exhonorate him either. That is why coroborating evidence and cross examination is needed.

DNA acquittals never get cross examination.

But as long as our system just locks up innocent blacks and hispanics, it is doing well enough.

There is no defense from a false accusation or false evidence. Any system that depends on simply convincing 12 rubes that something is true is bound to have some problems.

Actually, there is. Something like this:

16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.

I don't see why you need your own trial if the defense can prove that your testimony is lie. The defense attorney should be able to simply prove the witness/accuser/prosecutor/etc. a liar and the judge must statutorially sentence them to a severe punishment. Their first stop in the legal system can be an appeals court because the trial they were already participating in is sufficient enough for them to defend their motivations if they have anything worth saying.

And criminals DO have too many rights.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Eliminate the plea bargain. Every case should be proven in court. If the prosecutor can't prove it, it doesn't go to court.

2. All trial lawyers use the Syth system. Always two there are, one master and one apprentice. Always publicly funded for defense and prosecution. It is every bit as punishing to pay the costs of defense as to just be found guilty. No private lawyers allowed. Equal justice for OJ and Julio.

3. No punative judgements in civil suits. and none against companies. Punishment is the sole purview of criminal courts and a company cannot be a criminal. Crimes are acts of volition by people.

4. Testimoney by one criminal to convict another is not allowed.

5. People facing the death penalty get the same rights to appeal as those facing long imprisonment. A life stolen has the same value to both men.

6. Institute a policy of jury qualifications. Basic legal procedure, the constitution, and logic are among the requirements. Can't pass the test? You don't get to sit on a jury. Letting stupid people sit on juries is what sends innocent people to prison and lets OJ walk free. Linked with this is the requirement to cast a broader net to find eligible jurors, not just the voter roles, but the DMV roles too.

I don't see why you need your own trial if the defense can prove that your testimony is lie.

If two people give conflicting testimony, which one is the liar? Is it possible to be wrong but not lie? Some people give testimony they believe is true, but they are simply wrong.

This does not prevent false testimony. It does not even make it easier to discover. This is already a duty of the courts and is called perjury. A gang of false accusers outweights the truthful testimony.