Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants • Hacker News Board

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#31

Post by mehrdadn » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #29

noonespecial wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more chilling considering that thanks to the state of the law today we are all guilty of some "lesser offense" right now. It would be interesting to calculate the "default jail sentence" of the average citizen if an overzealous prosecutor decided to randomly harass them.

This is a somewhat common sentiment, probably because it's cynical enough to conform with people's prior conceptions. But I doubt it is actually true. Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings,…

Jaywalking appears to be a crime (misdemeanor) in some jurisdictions. If you pick someone from those jurisdictions... chances are good that they've jaywalked at some point. Doesn't mean a Congress investigating you would ever find evidence on it, or that it would care even if it did, but it does make it more likely that the statement that everyone commits a crime is true. Right?

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#32

Post by anamexis » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

CamJN wrote: post #3

> In the past five years, she has taken 3,802 cases, including 1,787 new felonies, according to data from Michigan’s Third Judicial Circuit Court. That’s more than one felony case every workday—excluding the ones involving simple probation violations, which Cameron also takes hundreds of each year. 3802/(5*365.25) ≈ 2.08 cases per day, every day in those five years including weekends, not just "more than one per work…

The quote is "more than one felony case every workday," and the number of felony cases was 1,787, yielding 1787/(5*261) ≈ 1.37 felony cases per workday.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#33

Post by mirimir » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

tynpeddler wrote: post #19

Here's a serious question, what's preventing the pool of public defenders and the DA's from being the same people? Would lawyers in this position be influenced to throw defense cases for the sake of their police and judge buddies? Would they be willing to accept the potential professional consequences of having an abysmal defense record? Such a system could provide a lot of incentive for attorneys to maintain a more…

In my experience, former DAs make the best defense counsel. They know how stuff works. And they have friends.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#34

Post by mirimir » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

Those who've followed the cypherpunks list for many years know Jim Bell. Of Assassination Politics (AP) fame.

So maybe a year or two ago, he proposed setting up a GoFundMe-style NGO that would take every federal criminal case to trial. The argument being that it wouldn't take more than 10% (or whatever) to overload the system. And so defendants would get cases tossed based on the 6th Amendment.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#35

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #31

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a somewhat common sentiment, probably because it's cynical enough to conform with people's prior conceptions. But I doubt it is actually true. Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings,…

Jaywalking appears to be a crime (misdemeanor) in some jurisdictions. If you pick someone from those jurisdictions... chances are good that they've jaywalked at some point. Doesn't mean a Congress investigating you would ever find evidence on it, or that it would care even if it did, but it does make it more likely that the statement that everyone commits a crime is true. Right?

Quote: "some crime(s) punishable by jail time"

The charge is that the definition of serious crime has expanded to make everyone liable to go to jail. Traffic infractions do not fit the charge, because while a large majority of people will at some point break those laws, very few people consider the rules of the road an oppressive plot to enslave the population.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#36

Post by mc32 » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

ProCicero wrote: post #10

chrisco255 wrote: post #4

“Probably 95 percent of the people that are charged with something are guilty of something,” she asserted. “They may not be guilty of what they’re exactly charged with, but they may be guilty of a lesser offense, okay? … And you have probably 90 percent of those people who are looking for the best deal possible.” What a disturbing quote and very telling about the state of our justice system.

When you work with the assumption that police usually only arrest a person when they have strong evidence that person actually committed the crime, it's not that surprising. Whether that is a good working assumption to begin with is another debate.

While a bit off topic, this is how it happens in Japan. They will only prosecute cases with a high probability of successful prosecution. It’s one of the reasons their success rate is in the high nineties. Of course in some cases they also use coerced confessions that are facilitated by extended detentions without access to lawyers.

But also lots of serious crimes get swept under the rug because they will not prosecute with only flimsy evidence.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#37

Post by rhino369 » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 8:24 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #29

noonespecial wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even more chilling considering that thanks to the state of the law today we are all guilty of some "lesser offense" right now. It would be interesting to calculate the "default jail sentence" of the average citizen if an overzealous prosecutor decided to randomly harass them.

This is a somewhat common sentiment, probably because it's cynical enough to conform with people's prior conceptions. But I doubt it is actually true. Consider, for example, the various congressional investigations of Hilary Clinton in 2014/2015. If everybody was guilty of some crime(s) punishable by jail time, it would follow that some of those overly brought criminal statues would have come up in those proceedings,…

Not to get too political, but the FBI actually revised their memo clearing her because they accidentally used language which would have established she met all the elements of a crime. I.e. they used the words "grossly negligent" but changed them to "extremely careless." So I'm sure you can say they were trying to make anything stick.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#38

Post by ryacko » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #34

Those who've followed the cypherpunks list for many years know Jim Bell. Of Assassination Politics (AP) fame. So maybe a year or two ago, he proposed setting up a GoFundMe-style NGO that would take every federal criminal case to trial. The argument being that it wouldn't take more than 10% (or whatever) to overload the system. And so defendants would get cases tossed based on the 6th Amendment.

One billion dollars is spent per year on public defenders. The Justice Department spends twenty-eight billion dollars.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-t...

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#39

Post by ThrustVectoring » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 8:34 PM UTC

mirimir wrote: post #34

Those who've followed the cypherpunks list for many years know Jim Bell. Of Assassination Politics (AP) fame. So maybe a year or two ago, he proposed setting up a GoFundMe-style NGO that would take every federal criminal case to trial. The argument being that it wouldn't take more than 10% (or whatever) to overload the system. And so defendants would get cases tossed based on the 6th Amendment.

The problem with this is that prosecutors have the discretion to offer more and more lopsided plea deals in order to fix the backlog of cases, and discretion to go after defendants that insist on a trial as hard as possible.

Are you really going to turn down 6 months if there's a very real chance that you're going to get 25-to-life through a trial? If insisting on a trial means you spend weeks in prison and lose your job and house?

The solution is to give money to people who insist on or get a jury trial. Enough to make the "wait in jail for a trial instead of getting released immediately" feasible for people with families, and enough to make the risk of greater sentences at trial worth risking.

Re: Detroit’s Indigent Defense System Fails Poor Defendants

#40

Post by lazyguy » Thu, Aug 01, 2019, 8:41 PM UTC

mehrdadn wrote: post #30

anywherenotes wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a podcast, by the name: 'Serial', in season two they go into regular courtrooms with non-fancy cases - fights, etc. In one episode after the defendant has been found not guilty, the judge presiding over the case berated them for not accepting a plea deal, and wasting the court time. This is after the person has been found not guilty.

Is this typical in a normal court/with a normal judge? Or is this scenario an outlier?

The American Justice system is dehumanizing.

If you never have been involved as a 'criminal' in the USA court system it's a really huge culture shock and extremely dismaying to be treated as human refuse for the first time.

Most of the time we spend our time surrounded by people who care about us in one way or another. Your friends, your family, your partners, etc etc.

Even out in public the people you meet tend to have a reason to care about you. They are serving you or you are serving them for money.. so you have some reason to care. Even if you don't know them personally and they are a complete stranger there is almost always some reason, typically money, to be polite and take them into consideration. Even if it's phony it's still caring to a certain extent.. otherwise why put the effort into even being phony?

But when you are in jail or involved as a criminal... They have no such reason to give a crap about you. It's their day job. They get paid the same whether you are there or not.

In the court system you are treated with the same regard by court officials as a janitor would treat a full trash can. You are something that needs to be dealt with before lunch.

Sure if you are young or cute or innocent looking and it's your first time.. then maybe a Judge would be bemused with you and give you a break... But by and large you are just a impediment between now and when they need to visit the restroom or eat a sandwich.

You could be innocent, you could be guilty. It doesn't matter. Whether or not you are treated fair or not it's not relevant to them. You are just part of a process that needs to be processed. A button that needs to be pushed, some paper work that needs to be filled out. Some statistic that needs to be entered.

........

You going to court for some crime may be the most important day in your life. It could mean the difference between spending the next few years of your life in comfort with friends and family... or being stripped of all your rights, dignity, money, career, car, property, house.. and thrown in jail for 6 months or a year and then leaving with no prospects to basically be homeless after dealing with a divorce.

But for the other people in court? Chances are they won't even be able to recognize your face or remember you name in a day or two. You don't even be a memory. You are less relevant then the guy that sold them chicken nuggets for lunch.

If you are wealthy you could afford a lawyer who does have a reason to care and will give them reasons to care because he knows the court process and knows how to make it a big PITA to just brush you off... But that is not really relevant for most Americans.

And on the Federal level they typically try to freeze your accounts so you can't afford a proper defense anyways. Makes their jobs easier.