So glad we don't live in China

[macadamizer]

I hear ya... But for high visibility crimes where the shooter/killer was seen by many people and there is absolutely no doubt they have the right guy, you have to love chinese justice.

When is there "absolutely no doubt?" There have been numerous death penalty cases in the U.S. where someone was convicted on what was later found to be erroneous eyewitness testimony, or erroneous evidence, or a compelled confession.

My point is this -- sure, it seems easy when someone commits a crime in full view of a bunch of witnesses to simply go straight to conviction and punishment -- and I don't disagree that there are times when the weight of the evidence, the fact that the crime was committed in full view of a camera or witnesses, when there really is no question of guilt. The problem is, though, that these cases are few, and who do you want deciding when a case is a "no question of guilt" case or not, who gets to decide whether a case is entitled to full due process or not?

Here in the U.S., that same guy would either be found not guilty (insanity defense) or get either the death penalty or life in prison without parole. Every one of those outcomes would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, one way or another.

That seems to me both (a) an overly pessimistic view of our legal system, and (b) in any event, a reasonable price to pay if it means we don't execute innocent people.

Or, look at it in a way that is more apropos to topics discussed on CalGuns -- self defense. If you kill someone in a legal self-defense situation, do you want to be convicted solely on witness testimony that they saw you kill someone, or would you prefer to have a system where you could raise a defense to the killing? I am not saying that this defense is reasonable in the cases discussed by the OP, of course, but this is a potential outcome if we were to switch to a system where we immediately go to conviction when the crime is "obvious" or "clear."

And as far as an insanity defense, a couple of points to consider. First, it is much, much harder to prevail with an insanity defense than most people think. The bar for proving insanity is very high. And, in any event, if someone really is insane, and really can't understand what they are doing, then perhaps punishment isn't the proper outcome anyway.

I'm just saying, in cases like that, the chinese are saving LOTS of money.

Due process slows down, and increases the cost, of convicting and punishing those people for whom guilt is "obvious." But due process isn't designed for the "obvious" cases, it is designed for the far more common situation where the case isn't "obvious."

And if you are willing to do away with due process in "obvious" cases, I ask again -- who gets to decide when a case is "obvious?" And do you trust that person, or entity, to make the right decision if you, or somebody you know, is being charged with a crime?

But yeah, here it's more like: "Better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be found guilty."

That's the "Blackstone ratio." Ben Franklin put the number at 100.

[Canute]

I hear ya... But for high visibility crimes where the shooter/killer was seen by many people and there is absolutely no doubt they have the right guy, you have to love chinese justice.

I have very little praise for totalitarian governments. Be careful what you wish for. They whack people at the drop of a hat.