Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 457 posts

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#261

Post by db48x »

mcherm wrote: post #218
db48x wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember that a degree is only a credential, and people without the credential can still be good at their job. What you need to be a judge is knowledge, not a credential.

> people without the credential can still be good at their job Yes, and some can be very bad at their job. The goal of requiring one to pass a bar exam in order to practice law is to minimize the number of practicioners who are horribly incompetent, because of the serious damage it can do. It seems to me that a judge who doesn't know how the law works can do even MORE severe damage.

That’s a fair opinion, but 28 out of 50 states voted otherwise. If you want to change that then talk to your state’s congresscritters. Just remember that there are plenty of terrible lawyers out there who did pass the bar, and plenty of terrible judges who were once terrible lawyers.

A degree is ultimately just a piece of paper (or parchment, if they went to a fancy school). It’s not a guarantee that they’ll be any good at their job.

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#262

Post by pas »

chollida1 wrote: post #236
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree 100%. I've written about this here before, but I've been involved in two civil lawsuits in my life. One was in the USA, the other was in mainland China. I should stress that I am an American, and I wasn't even in China when the lawsuit over there was moving along. The Chinese process was very fast -- it went before a judge who reached a verdict in something like ten months -- and it was extremely inexpensive.…

> . Two years on, and we were just at the beginning of "discovery" -- an amazingly invasive process that appears to be unique to the US legal system. This is common in almost all legal systems. How else would the defendant get to examine the evidence against them and how else would you provide evidence if there was no discovery process? Its hard to imagine there would be a legal system without it.

> [How] would you provide evidence ...

You don't sue people for fun, right? It's either they did something to you and you have damages, costs, paperwork, records, CCTV footage, medical examination records, whatever, or you want them to do something based on some regulation/statute/right.

Discovery usually tries to show that so and so higher up knew about it all along, no?

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#264

Post by rafram »

dguest wrote: post #126
AngryData wrote: post #38

Anyone who has ever dealt with the US justice system as just some regular bloke knows it is broken. 90% of it is about extorting the population for funding for the courts and cops. If you can't afford a lawyer, they will provide you with a joke. And if you can afford a lawyer, now its just a question if you are willing to spend more on your lawyer than the state is hoping to extort from you. If you are, you will get…

You forgot that the prosecution will go over the top on charges, as bargaining chips for a plea deal. None of these would ever stick in a real court, but if you're facing sexual assault charges (and a lifetime on the sex offender registry) for allegedly peeing in a park, pleading guilty to a lesser crime sounds pretty good. Everyone has a right to a trial by jury in theory, but if you waste the prosecutor's time by e…

> if you're facing sexual assault charges (and a lifetime on the sex offender registry) for allegedly peeing in a park

People repeat this anecdote all the time, but I'd challenge you to find a single person who has ever been put on the sex offender registry for nothing more than public urination. (Let alone being charged with sexual assault, which is nonsensical -- look up how that crime is defined in US law.)

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#265

Post by pas »

netcan wrote: post #235
AngryData wrote: post #38

Anyone who has ever dealt with the US justice system as just some regular bloke knows it is broken. 90% of it is about extorting the population for funding for the courts and cops. If you can't afford a lawyer, they will provide you with a joke. And if you can afford a lawyer, now its just a question if you are willing to spend more on your lawyer than the state is hoping to extort from you. If you are, you will get…

> Just like healthcare, US justice is only for people with money. In most times and places, this is true. Ancient times, recent history, autocracies, democracies... Justice is expensive. Justice, and the legal college as an ideal often specifically negates this. Equality before the law. Blind justice, etc. That said... justice is inevitably ridden with contradiction, hypocrisy and whatnot. That's what justice is. Deg…

Small claims works (arbitration too), it should be used more. (But people somehow think that arbitration is fake, but of course ignore all the downsides of the public courts. And of course what people who have given it a few minutes of thought usually don't like is that there's no way to do class-action arbitration. But that's not set in stone.)

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#266

Post by mmooss »

jwsteigerwalt wrote: post #176
praptak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are bringing up chess rules while the opponent flips the table and draws a knife.

No, as a society we apparently don’t really care about these inmates. The social justice movement has chosen plenty of questionable causes, but neglected ones like this one.

The social justice movement has focused on prisoners, and especially on reducing incarceration and allowing former prisoners to transfer back to society successfully.

The progressive DAs elected a few years ago prioritized decriminalization and deincarceration, and for formerly incarcerated, movements such as 'ban the box' (prohibiting employers to require info on past inceration) and restoring voting rights have also been priorities.

There's also focus on the 13th amendment of the Constitution, which has an exception for incarcerated people to be used for forced (slave) labor.

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#268

Post by tombert »

Something I’ve joked about but also kind of depended on in my life: most, but not all, problems go away if you throw enough money at it.

For the last nine years, I’ve aggressively saved money because I don’t ever want to be in a situation where I cannot buy my way out of a problem. Cynical? Absolutely, but I live in the US.

I think this is terrible, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t change the fact that this is how it is at least for now.

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#269

Post by ajross »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #256
chollida1 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> . Two years on, and we were just at the beginning of "discovery" -- an amazingly invasive process that appears to be unique to the US legal system. This is common in almost all legal systems. How else would the defendant get to examine the evidence against them and how else would you provide evidence if there was no discovery process? Its hard to imagine there would be a legal system without it.

In China I recall that "the burden of proof was on the parties" and both sides were asked to submit all relevant evidence to the court. Then there were a couple of meetings where my lawyer met with the other side's lawyer to review the evidence. If you're the plaintiff and you have evidence that supports your version of events, you give it all to the court. If you're the defendant and you have exculpatory evidence, o…

> If you're the plaintiff and you have evidence that supports your version of events, you give it all to the court. If you're the defendant and you have exculpatory evidence, or anything that shows that the case is frivolous, you give it all to the court.

Yes, but what if you're the plaintiff/defendant and the other party has evidence in your favor? How do you get it before the court? That is what discovery is for.

Honestly it just sounds like you had an easy case tried in China and a hard one tried in the US and are making some really broad assertions about the two legal systems based on a small sample size.

Re: In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants

#270

Post by iwontberude »

tombert wrote: post #268

Something I’ve joked about but also kind of depended on in my life: most, but not all, problems go away if you throw enough money at it. For the last nine years, I’ve aggressively saved money because I don’t ever want to be in a situation where I cannot buy my way out of a problem. Cynical? Absolutely, but I live in the US. I think this is terrible, but just because I don’t like it doesn’t change the fact that this i…

Best part is after amassing all of this wealth I don’t feel any more protected. I don’t trust brokers/banks to allow sufficient withdrawals, FDIC or NCUA to pay out in a timely way, cash to not be inflated, BTC network fees and trouble causing more lost wealth, my physical ability to protect precious metals from government or thieves, etc.

The reality is we are naked and pretending otherwise is a prisoners dilemma.

Post reply on HN