That’s great, really. But I still find it a bit ironic for federal prosecutors to take a stand on refusing to admit something they don’t want to admit, when that’s what they force most of the people they prosecute to do. Plea or rot in jail is their go-to strategy…
Still the right decision, but these are not heroes…just people who made the right call for a change.
Well, the system is that they go hard after convictions, and there’s a counterbalancing force on the other side that goes hard after acquittals. It’s not really a wrong system, it is the best design we’ve come up with. There are horrible inequities in how it gets applied, but it’s mostly a matter of (1) laws getting made in a way that perverts justice on behalf of the rich (2) the prosecution getting the full resources it needs to go hard in 100% of cases, and the defense only getting those resources if the client is wealthy and otherwise “lol good luck sucker.”
I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
(2) the prosecution getting the full resources it needs to go hard in 100% of cases, and the defense only getting those resources if the client is wealthy and otherwise “lol good luck sucker.”
What would you think of a rule giving a person charged with a crime a voucher payable to their lawyer, where the amount of the voucher is equal to the amount spent against them times a factor based on their income?
I think that would be a wonderful idea. There actually are places where as I understand it the public defender’s office is pretty good, with decent criminal attorneys who can really fight the case for you if there is something to work with, but that’s not consistent. Historically it was sometimes very bad. A lot of places it’s still pretty bad.
It’s also somewhat unrelated, but I think the era of putting a whole bunch of stuff on YouTube is a really good step. A lot of courtrooms just broadcast everything that happens onto a dedicated YouTube channel now, unless there is some reason not to, and it’s a really good thing. I think empowering people to show other people what happened, the actual nuts and bolts and how it went down in court, if there’s some fuckery, is giving a pretty strong disadvantage (in the long run) to the fuckery.
I saw one of these that was fucking harrowing. A woman got sexually assaulted, and the prosecutor had worked out a slap-on-the-wrist plea agreement for the guy without really consulting her even though they had said they would. She showed up for the sentencing and asked to speak before they went through with the plea agreement. That’s not really normal but the judge said fine. She explained all about how the prosecutor had lied to her, how they’d assured her that the guy would actually get punished and then just ghosted her, and called out the prosecutor for lying in court when he tried to argue back with her. She was furious. The judge rejected the plea agreement, yelled at the prosecutor, and they negotiated back to something that was still kind of bullshit (I think like 30 days in jail and some probation), but more than it had been. Which you could tell she was still absolutely enraged by. She argued with the judge, the judge kind of apologized but “you know look the prosecution are the ones that are going to fight the case, there’s only so much I can do.”
Anyway it was bullshit. But the point is, having it in public I think is definitely better than not. I think a lot of the fuckery that developed in the US criminal justice system is because the cops’ behavior on the street, and then the judgements happening inside the courtroom, were really only visible if you’re in some way involved in the system, so it’s hard for the community as a whole to really see what’s happening. IDK what the answer is but it does seem like reducing the massive money-dependence that the system has, and making it more transparent to people who aren’t either working for the system or immediately in the crosshairs, are two really important things.
I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.
It does occasionally happen that people get accused of a crime because they, in fact, committed a crime. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro, Charles Manson, all those school shooters, the guy that broke into your car last year, drunk drivers, wife-beaters, a lot of people go through the court system because they in fact did do something wrong.
Without a system where a defense lawyer could argue vigorously to try to prove their innocence, no one who knowingly and deliberately got screwed for no good reason would have a chance to prove their innocence. Without someone on the other side trying to prove their guilt, it wouldn’t work either. Again, I do think there are huge injustices built in to our current “justice” system, I actually completely agree with you on that. I just think that prosecutors doing their job isn’t one of them.
Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.
It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.
The problem isn’t them arguing to the best of their ability that the accused is guilty. The problem is trying to stack so many years of prison into the charge that the accused pleads out because it’s safer to serve 5 years for something you didn’t do than risk 20 years trying to prove your innocence. That’s not justice.
Yeah. That’s one of the big inequities built into the system. You basically have to have tons of resources for a good lawyer, and an ironclad way to prove your innocence, and also be willing to roll the dice that you won’t get fucked for life anyway just because you got unlucky in the trial. If you don’t have all three of those things, you’re fucked from the start even if you didn’t do anything.
That’s great, really. But I still find it a bit ironic for federal prosecutors to take a stand on refusing to admit something they don’t want to admit, when that’s what they force most of the people they prosecute to do. Plea or rot in jail is their go-to strategy…
Still the right decision, but these are not heroes…just people who made the right call for a change.
It’s weird how that’s not even true. “Plead out or gamble” is more apt. You get your answers off TV?
Well, the system is that they go hard after convictions, and there’s a counterbalancing force on the other side that goes hard after acquittals. It’s not really a wrong system, it is the best design we’ve come up with. There are horrible inequities in how it gets applied, but it’s mostly a matter of (1) laws getting made in a way that perverts justice on behalf of the rich (2) the prosecution getting the full resources it needs to go hard in 100% of cases, and the defense only getting those resources if the client is wealthy and otherwise “lol good luck sucker.”
I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
What would you think of a rule giving a person charged with a crime a voucher payable to their lawyer, where the amount of the voucher is equal to the amount spent against them times a factor based on their income?
Don’t you mean “proportional to”? (rather than equal to)
I think that would be a wonderful idea. There actually are places where as I understand it the public defender’s office is pretty good, with decent criminal attorneys who can really fight the case for you if there is something to work with, but that’s not consistent. Historically it was sometimes very bad. A lot of places it’s still pretty bad.
It’s also somewhat unrelated, but I think the era of putting a whole bunch of stuff on YouTube is a really good step. A lot of courtrooms just broadcast everything that happens onto a dedicated YouTube channel now, unless there is some reason not to, and it’s a really good thing. I think empowering people to show other people what happened, the actual nuts and bolts and how it went down in court, if there’s some fuckery, is giving a pretty strong disadvantage (in the long run) to the fuckery.
I saw one of these that was fucking harrowing. A woman got sexually assaulted, and the prosecutor had worked out a slap-on-the-wrist plea agreement for the guy without really consulting her even though they had said they would. She showed up for the sentencing and asked to speak before they went through with the plea agreement. That’s not really normal but the judge said fine. She explained all about how the prosecutor had lied to her, how they’d assured her that the guy would actually get punished and then just ghosted her, and called out the prosecutor for lying in court when he tried to argue back with her. She was furious. The judge rejected the plea agreement, yelled at the prosecutor, and they negotiated back to something that was still kind of bullshit (I think like 30 days in jail and some probation), but more than it had been. Which you could tell she was still absolutely enraged by. She argued with the judge, the judge kind of apologized but “you know look the prosecution are the ones that are going to fight the case, there’s only so much I can do.”
Anyway it was bullshit. But the point is, having it in public I think is definitely better than not. I think a lot of the fuckery that developed in the US criminal justice system is because the cops’ behavior on the street, and then the judgements happening inside the courtroom, were really only visible if you’re in some way involved in the system, so it’s hard for the community as a whole to really see what’s happening. IDK what the answer is but it does seem like reducing the massive money-dependence that the system has, and making it more transparent to people who aren’t either working for the system or immediately in the crosshairs, are two really important things.
I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.
It does occasionally happen that people get accused of a crime because they, in fact, committed a crime. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro, Charles Manson, all those school shooters, the guy that broke into your car last year, drunk drivers, wife-beaters, a lot of people go through the court system because they in fact did do something wrong.
Without a system where a defense lawyer could argue vigorously to try to prove their innocence, no one who knowingly and deliberately got screwed for no good reason would have a chance to prove their innocence. Without someone on the other side trying to prove their guilt, it wouldn’t work either. Again, I do think there are huge injustices built in to our current “justice” system, I actually completely agree with you on that. I just think that prosecutors doing their job isn’t one of them.
Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.
Why are you lecturing me? What’s my point #2 say up in the parent comment?
It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.
What’s my point #2 say, up in the parent comment?
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.
The problem isn’t them arguing to the best of their ability that the accused is guilty. The problem is trying to stack so many years of prison into the charge that the accused pleads out because it’s safer to serve 5 years for something you didn’t do than risk 20 years trying to prove your innocence. That’s not justice.
Yeah. That’s one of the big inequities built into the system. You basically have to have tons of resources for a good lawyer, and an ironclad way to prove your innocence, and also be willing to roll the dice that you won’t get fucked for life anyway just because you got unlucky in the trial. If you don’t have all three of those things, you’re fucked from the start even if you didn’t do anything.