Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (74713)	7/3/2008 6:56:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543251

How about - "In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed." It could be argued if the trial of facts in the next county over was ever seriously detrimental to the security of the life, the liberty, and the estate of the citizen. If a case can be made that it was, when transportation was slower (horseback, animal drawn wagon, or even walking to the court), it would be really hard to make a case that this idea is still true and relevant. (Harder in my opinion than making the case that individual weapons help the security of the state today). That provision was amended in 1978, adding an exception to the requirement "Art 17th In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts, in the vicinity where they happened, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county or judicial district than that in which it is committed; except in any case in any particular county or judicial district, upon motion by the defendant, and after a finding by the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the offense may be committed, the court shall direct the trial to a county or judicial district in which a fair and im-partial trial can be obtained. (Note - as amended 1978) harbornet.com But the exception doesn't change much that is relevant to this conversation. It isn't essential any more, but other than adding the exception there is no movement to say that the whole article is inactive or severely changed, or doesn't protect an individual right, because modern transportation and communications technologies and infrastructure allow for more distant trials. Now its true that there is still a benefit from having the trial fairly close (even though "the same county" isn't important any more). I'd rather not have to drive across NH (or my state VA) to be at a trial. But imagine in the future that there really is just about no benefit. Lets say that we have something like Star Trek transporters, and they are very cheap and common. And anywhere in the state of New Hampshire (or in the country, or on the Earth, or in Earth orbit) could be reached quickly, cheaply, and easily. Under those circumstances would you really rule that the phrase "that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county or judicial district than that in which it is committed" would be inapplicable, even when the listed exception does not pertain to the case, and in the absence of any amendment? That would seem rather bizarre to me.