[Nimue] And yet another oddity about ... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Lateral Puzzles » Solved Lateral Thinking Puzzles » Solved Puzzles - November 2013 » [Nimue] And yet another oddity about criminal justice « Previous Next »

Author Message
Nimue (Nimue)
New member
Username: Nimue

Post Number: 9728
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Saturday, November 16, 2013 - 10:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Watching "Law & Order" has made me aware of yet another oddity about the American criminal justice system. What is it??
Jondahr (Jondahr)
New member
Username: Jondahr

Post Number: 244
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does it have to do with actual written laws? How they are practiced? The procedures in court? The people involved? The structure of it all?
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 303
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Monday, November 18, 2013 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Permit to copy and paste from the last criminal justice puzzle:

Does the oddity have to do with law enforcement? The court system? The penal system?

Does the oddity have anything to do with:
Judges?
Juries?
Trials?
Attorneys?
Testimony?
Bail?
Sentencing?
Arrests?
Law officers?
Parole?
Legal defenses?
Prosecution?
Evidence?
Plea bargains?
Nimue (Nimue)
New member
Username: Nimue

Post Number: 9730
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Monday, November 18, 2013 - 8:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Jondahr (Jondahr)
New member
Username: Jondahr

Post Number: 244
Registered: 9-2013

Posted on Sunday, November 17, 2013 - 11:14 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)
Does it have to do with actual written laws? yes How they are practiced? yes The procedures in court? yesThe people involved? see previous answers The structure of it all? no
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 303
Registered: 9-2013

Posted on Monday, November 18, 2013 - 2:31 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)
Permit to copy and paste from the last criminal justice puzzle:

Does the oddity have to do with law enforcement? no The court system? yes The penal system? no

Does the oddity have anything to do with:
Judges? yes
Juries? yes
Trials? yes
Attorneys? yes
Testimony? yes -- most relevant
Bail? no
Sentencing? no
Arrests? possibly
Law officers? not specifically
Parole? no
Legal defenses? possibly
Prosecution? ditto
Evidence? yes
Plea bargains? not specifically
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 305
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 7:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does this oddity have to do with how testimony is given? What sort of testimony is permitted? How lawyers examine or cross-examine witnesses? How witnesses are sworn in?

Fifth Amendment rights relevant? Hearsay relevant?

Would this oddity be present in all criminal cases that go to trial? Most trials? Very few trials?
Nimue (Nimue)
New member
Username: Nimue

Post Number: 9731
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 9:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 305
Registered: 9-2013

Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 7:24 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)
Does this oddity have to do with how testimony is given? yope What sort of testimony is permitted? yesHow lawyers examine or cross-examine witnesses? no How witnesses are sworn in? no

Fifth Amendment rights relevant? no Hearsay relevant? yes

Would this oddity be present in all criminal cases that go to trial? no Most trials? no Very few trials? yes
Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 306
Registered: 9-2013
Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 10:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Is the oddity that a certain kind of hearsay is admissable, that you wouldn't think is? Is it that a certain type of testimony is considered hearsay, when you wouldn't think it is?

Is that hearsay is admissible when it's the defendant fault the original speaker is missing? Is it that it applies not just to spoken words? Is it that dying words are almost always admissible?
Nimue (Nimue)
New member
Username: Nimue

Post Number: 9732
Registered: 8-2001
Posted on Wednesday, November 20, 2013 - 5:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Alexanderhamilton (Alexanderhamilton)
New member
Username: Alexanderhamilton

Post Number: 306
Registered: 9-2013

Posted on Tuesday, November 19, 2013 - 10:26 pm: Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)
Is the oddity that a certain kind of hearsay is admissable, that you wouldn't think is? yesIs it that a certain type of testimony is considered hearsay, when you wouldn't think it is? no

Is that hearsay is admissible when it's the defendant fault the original speaker is missing? noIs it that it applies not just to spoken words? noIs it that dying words are almost always admissible? yes

********** SPOILER ****************
"Dying declarations" are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule, but not for the obvious reason that the speaker would be unavailable. A "dying declaration" in the legal sense is one made by someone who thinks he is dying, even if it turns out that he doesn't die. And it doesn't include all declarations made by someone who is now dead. Is the rationale that the belief that you are dying will impel you to tell the truth? That's hardly plausible -- if you don't believe in an afterlife, you may figure it's safe to lie when you're dying, because the lie can't hurt you. I figured that this puzzle would be hard, but it turned out to be a snap. Please check out my replacement puzzle as well as my two long-running ones.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: