Man, if we could get this kind of outrage built up against over zealous prosecution when the defendant isn't a white techie, we might actually get some criminal justice reform in the U.S.
Prosecutor as bully
121–130 of 277 posts
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.
What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should…
>Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate?
Don't be ridiculous. What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees.
>People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwise Grand Juries (and the prosecutors that bring cases before them) aren't serving their function, and their findings of probable cause are erroneous.
It is pretty obviously the case that they fail spectacularly at this function.
"a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler
And until that changes (if it even can), the conviction rate should not be anywhere near as high as it is.
>too many things are illegal (and felonious in particular), and the penalties are too severe.
On this we agree.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.
What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should…
It seems pointless to talk about conviction rates in isolation. In a perfect world, prosecutors would bring charges exactly when they had enough evidence to prove that the suspect committed the crime, and they would be found guilty at trial due to that evidence. One could also imagine a horribly imperfect world where prosecutors routinely charge innocents and achieve convictions in every case regardless due to kangaroo courts. In both cases, the conviction rate is 100%, even though one world is great and one is awful.
Without knowing why the rate is what it is, it seems pointless to talk about it at all. A 99% rate could be great, and a 50% rate could be great, depending on why it happens.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
So 97% is "absurd" but 90-91% is well within reason? Moreover, in many cases the cause of a dismissal is that the prosecutor requested it, e.g. because the entire charge was a farce meant to intimidate the defendant and it by that point had either failed or (more likely) succeeded to do so and no longer needed to be maintained.
What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should…
Thanks for some clear, rational thinking in what is otherwise an irrational, emotional, and ignorant cluster fuck of a thread.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#125Man, if we could get this kind of outrage built up against over zealous prosecution when the defendant isn't a white techie, we might actually get some criminal justice reform in the U.S.
If we're lucky we can get this kind of outrage built up when it is, and then fix it for everyone.
These laws get passed when the innocent victim is a sympathetic white girl, why can't they get repealed when the innocent accused is a sympathetic white boy?
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or, you know, you could just call your local Congressperson and complain. Almost certainly zero impact for this. Easily ignored. The prosecutor in this case, however, probably could not easily ignore her friends and family dumping her.
Do you really think your internet activism will cause her family and friends to "dump" her?
It's worth a shot.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#127Man, if we could get this kind of outrage built up against over zealous prosecution when the defendant isn't a white techie, we might actually get some criminal justice reform in the U.S.
If we're lucky we can get this kind of outrage built up when it is, and then fix it for everyone. These laws get passed when the innocent victim is a sympathetic white girl, why can't they get repealed when the innocent accused is a sympathetic white boy?
No laws are being rewritten posthumously for 'sympathetic white girl'.
There's really no need to inject 'prosecuted white guy' into the conversation.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you prefer it be, 50/50? Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? If someone is formally charged with a federal felony, that means they have been indicted by a federal Grand Jury; i.e., a majority of the 23 Grand Jurors felt that there is probable cause for charging the defendant(s) with the alleged offense(s). People indicted by Grand Juries should…
>Would you prefer the US charge more innocent people with crimes to bring down the conviction rate? Don't be ridiculous. What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees. >People indicted by Grand Juries should end up getting convicted the vast majority of time, otherwis…
> What I would prefer is that more of the innocent people who are currently charged not be convicted or coerced into a guilty plea by the prospect of outrageous penalties and soul-crushing legal fees.
Swartz was guilty. Even Lessig's post decrying Swartz' treatment intimates as much. Again, perhaps the things he did shouldn't have been crimes, or at least not felonies, and the penalties shouldn't have been so severe, but you need to distinguish between innocent people being wrongly prosecuted for things they did not do and bad law making criminals out of good people.
> "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted." - New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler
Judges, prosecutors and legal academics in general exhibit hostility towards juries, grand and petit alike. There are rare exceptions, such as Antonin Scalia. But in general, the legal profession resents the continued involvement of the common man in the judicial process, especially in as crucial a role as pre- and post-trial arbiter of fact.
Whatever perceived defects exist in the grand jury process, such as its secrecy or the absence of the accused, these can be remedied while still keeping intact the basic structure of 23 average citizens making, by majority, a determination of probable cause.
In fact, rather than being part of the problem, if juries were so emboldened, they could mitigate many of the injustices of our system themselves through the use of jury nullification.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#129Assuming he did it -- or he didn't but was going to be found guilty anyway -- wouldn't fifty years for this nonviolent crime, done in the Martin Luther King Jr. spirit of civil disobedience, by a person with (I assume) no prior criminal record, be Unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment?
MLK Jr. did his jail/prison time and he didn't pussyfoot around his civil disobedience.
All the love for aaronsw, but he wasn't ever sentenced and if what he was alleged to do was a civil disobedience act, it was hidden behind his lawyers.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#130In keeping with agwa's, and others', analysis that the system itself is broken, Aaron's thoughtful analysis of The Dark Knight is very interesting. Aaron concludes that, of the various desperate attempts to change Gotham's corrupt systems, the Joker ultimately has the most success by causing chaos. The eerie part is the last line:
"Thus Master Wayne is left without solutions. Out of options, it’s no wonder the series ends with his staged suicide."