Why should one not support the judicial system?

[Josh]

I find I agree with Ken. When I’ve sat in court for a traffic ticket, virtually every other defendant was obviously guilty.

Likewise, “drug courts” prevent wasting time on a forensic sentence when what the person actually needs is rehabilitation. To be rehabilitated, they do have to be stripped of their rights (basically rights to drink and have freedom of movement, which tends to lead straight back to drugs).

[Bootstrap]

I find I agree with Ken. When I’ve sat in court for a traffic ticket, virtually every other defendant was obviously guilty.

Likewise, “drug courts” prevent wasting time on a forensic sentence when what the person actually needs is rehabilitation. To be rehabilitated, they do have to be stripped of their rights (basically rights to drink and have freedom of movement, which tends to lead straight back to drugs).

I think selective enforcement is a big part of the problem here.

In places that have gangs, they don't have funds to take down the gangs or catch murderers, but they do have funds to catch people with small amounts of drugs. They don't protect the neighborhood, they do arrest the little guy. So sure, most of them are probably guilty, but there's still a problem.

In upper middle class or rich schools, if you get caught with a small amount of drugs, they hire a therapist for you. And in those neighborhoods, the police protect you. That results in very different outcomes.

[Ken]

I find I agree with Ken. When I’ve sat in court for a traffic ticket, virtually every other defendant was obviously guilty.

Likewise, “drug courts” prevent wasting time on a forensic sentence when what the person actually needs is rehabilitation. To be rehabilitated, they do have to be stripped of their rights (basically rights to drink and have freedom of movement, which tends to lead straight back to drugs).

I think selective enforcement is a big part of the problem here.

In places that have gangs, they don't have funds to take down the gangs or catch murderers, but they do have funds to catch people with small amounts of drugs. They don't protect the neighborhood, they do arrest the little guy. So sure, most of them are probably guilty, but there's still a problem.

In upper middle class or rich schools, if you get caught with a small amount of drugs, they hire a therapist for you. And in those neighborhoods, the police protect you. That results in very different outcomes.

Yes, that's a big problem. But not really due to the plea bargain system. That is a more deeper systemic issue. We will never have equal justice in this or any other society. But we can do a lot more towards the fair administration of justice which is something somewhat different. Treating everybody fairly is not exactly the same as expecting that everyone will be treated equally.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, that's a big problem. But not really due to the plea bargain system. That is a more deeper systemic issue. We will never have equal justice in this or any other society. But we can do a lot more towards the fair administration of justice which is something somewhat different. Treating everybody fairly is not exactly the same as expecting that everyone will be treated equally.

Again, I recommend the Stuntz book. Think of the speed limit. Yes, you probably are speeding if you go 57 in a 55 mph zone. If everyone else is going 70, though, what is the real speed limit? A lot of our laws are vague and fuzzy and are applied differently to different people. And that's the problem.

The plea bargain system, along with vaguely defined laws and lots and lots of prosecutorial discretion, are at the heart of all of this. A prosecutor can threaten people with charges beyond what is likely to stick, the defendant is pretty vulnerable, and rarely has the resources to defend himself. Often, the person who is most guilty - the drug lords, for instance - does not get prosecuted, but the person who bought drugs does, it's just a whole lot easier for the police and the prosecutors.

And sometimes the defendant really is innocent.

[Ken]

Yes, that's a big problem. But not really due to the plea bargain system. That is a more deeper systemic issue. We will never have equal justice in this or any other society. But we can do a lot more towards the fair administration of justice which is something somewhat different. Treating everybody fairly is not exactly the same as expecting that everyone will be treated equally.

Again, I recommend the Stuntz book. Think of the speed limit. Yes, you probably are speeding if you go 57 in a 55 mph zone. If everyone else is going 70, though, what is the real speed limit? A lot of our laws are vague and fuzzy and are applied differently to different people. And that's the problem.

The plea bargain system, along with vaguely defined laws and lots and lots of prosecutorial discretion, are at the heart of all of this. A prosecutor can threaten people with charges beyond what is likely to stick, the defendant is pretty vulnerable, and rarely has the resources to defend himself. Often, the person who is most guilty - the drug lords, for instance - does not get prosecuted, but the person who bought drugs does, it's just a whole lot easier for the police and the prosecutors.

And sometimes the defendant really is innocent.

Yes, the problems are easy to identify. But bring us solutions. What PRACTICAL solutions dues Stuntz suggest? More jury trials I see from the sentence you copied. But that is no solution at all unless we want to throw tens of billions of dollars at new public defenders around the country who can take cases to trial, in addition to all the additional judges, courtrooms, etc.

[barnhart]

I think we accept the status quo because deep down it seems like the people caught in it deserve at least part of their fate. If the system reached out and grabbed some one you know unjustly or regularly swept up people close, either geographically or culturally, it would have a different impact. As long as the majority see themselves apart from the system, no additional resources will be found.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, the problems are easy to identify. But bring us solutions. What PRACTICAL solutions dues Stuntz suggest? More jury trials I see from the sentence you copied. But that is no solution at all unless we want to throw tens of billions of dollars at new public defenders around the country who can take cases to trial, in addition to all the additional judges, courtrooms, etc.

First off, I recommend reading the entire book if you want to understand the solutions he suggests. I can go back and reread it when I have time.

One significant emphasis is on policing. Fund police, train them, and hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. Prioritize serious crime - solve murders, even in rough neighborhoods, target the leaders of drug gangs. Work with neighborhoods and ensure them that protecting them is a serious priority for police. Build trust with the neighborhoods.

Because currently, many neighborhoods feel that the police just aren't there to protect them from serious crime. But they are there to put people in jail for fairly minor crimes where it's easy to catch people. And often, there are also financial incentives or performance incentives for police to do this.

One sound bite at a time ;->

[Robert]

One significant emphasis is on policing. Fund police, train them, and hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. Prioritize serious crime - solve murders, even in rough neighborhoods, target the leaders of drug gangs. Work with neighborhoods and ensure them that protecting them is a serious priority for police. Build trust with the neighborhoods.

From my experience, it is the Attorney General Office that is who does the judicial process. The Police are only on the front end and they are not involved once an arrest is made.

The legal system allows for indefinite detention and there are little checks and balances on the AG offices. They are friends of the court and the judges give them a LOT of ley way. The cost of a good lawyer is quite high so normal people caught up in the system has little options unless they want to spend $20,000 to $100,000 for legal representation. The county or state has unlimited funding and can delay the case for years. Bail is expensive and once paid, there is no remittance. That money is just gone too. Court appointed attorneys are a joke. The care little for their clients and do as little as possible to help them.

How can this be considered a fair and balanced system? Poor innocent people are forced to accept a plea bargain just to get out of jail and the system. All the AGs care about is the number of convictions. They care little for the people involved.

[Bootstrap]

One significant emphasis is on policing. Fund police, train them, and hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. Prioritize serious crime - solve murders, even in rough neighborhoods, target the leaders of drug gangs. Work with neighborhoods and ensure them that protecting them is a serious priority for police. Build trust with the neighborhoods.

From my experience, it is the Attorney General Office that is who does the judicial process.

Do you mean District Attorney?

The Police are only on the front end and they are not involved once an arrest is made.

Everything in the paragraph you quoted, though, is about policing. And it's a big part of the problem.

[Bootstrap]

The legal system allows for indefinite detention and there are little checks and balances on the AG offices. They are friends of the court and the judges give them a LOT of leeway. The cost of a good lawyer is quite high so normal people caught up in the system has little options unless they want to spend $20,000 to $100,000 for legal representation. The county or state has unlimited funding and can delay the case for years. Bail is expensive and once paid, there is no remittance. That money is just gone too. Court appointed attorneys are a joke. The care little for their clients and do as little as possible to help them.

How can this be considered a fair and balanced system? Poor innocent people are forced to accept a plea bargain just to get out of jail and the system. All the AGs care about is the number of convictions. They care little for the people involved.

I agree with most of this.

A few technicalities: I think you mean District Attorney, not AG. And in some places, they really don't have the money to go after serious crime, so they don't focus on murders or drug gangs in bad neighborhoods. I also think bail is generally returned if you comply with bail conditions, whether you are found guilty or innocent.

But you're right: if you are arrested, you don't know the system, you don't have the lawyer you need, you don't know what to do, and they do. Court appointed attorneys are way overloaded - in many jurisdictions, they may be juggling dozens or even hundreds of cases at the same time. I know a few lawyers who have done this, and I think they did care, but with caseloads like that, it doesn't matter if you care or not, you can't really do the job.

Of course, richer people may have armies of lawyers. That's a reason that white collar criminals often get off so easy. And they can mount "poor me" publicity campaigns that go viral, sometimes even enlisting their marketing departments.