government may represent the people, however, it's (at least here in us) a quite separate, effectively, incorporated entity, that can make money, sue, be sued... i cannot sue the people of connecticut, but i definitely can do that to the state of connecticut. e.g, when i am a victim, and the state fails to protect me, the state can lose quite a bit of $$$.
there's plenty of conflict of interests, since the police, prosecutors and judges are all state employees. i wonder how would anyone feel if cases "Microsoft vs. X" were handled entirely my Microsoft legal depertment? it is *somewhat* balanced by the presence of jury in criminal courts, but civil ones are far from being impartial. and as far as election goes... guess what: those who are really affected by the system (convicts) cannot vote. and those who can, couldn't care less, since it doesn't touch them directly (we all want to be *tough* on crime, don't we? that is, as long as we are on this side of the bars). best, mishka On 1/12/06, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The justice system and the penal system are set up and run by the > government, which represents The People, and which is elected by The > People. In the US, criminal prosecutions are in the style of cause > "The State vs. John Doe" or even (in some states) "The People vs. John > Doe". The prosecutor represents society at large. Jury trials are > before a "jury of peers", who represent society at large. > > Further, if the police, prosecutors and court system are incompetent, > over-aggressive, or corrupt, the ultimate solution rests with the > electors to bring in a government which will reform the system, and > sweep out such evils. > > Keith, I know that saying that we're all complicit and responsible for > wrongful convictions is a bit remote, but I guess that I was kind of > throwing a bit of political theory into the discussion <g>. > > cheers, > frank > > > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson > >
