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

341–350 of 457 posts

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

#341

Post by mixologist »

lupusreal wrote: post #253
mixologist wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bad faith? US has been destroying Middle East for decades. Where do you thing that migrants from those regions run to? Wars in Middle East are not something that EU needs or wants. We just went with it because of all the "we are allies and we respect each other" lies that were used by US administrations to swindle EU and get what they want. Or do you propose that US pays for the costs of immigration problems aro…

We all know where the middle east strife comes from. America has supported it, but not America alone. Is Germany going to stop providing financial and military aid and hardware to Israel?

I have a feeling (haven't seen any studies) that support of Israel by EU countries is done mainly by politicians who are listening to US polititans.

It will be interesting to see how long EU support for Israel will last without the pressure from US.

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

#342

Post by qotgalaxy »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #303
netcan wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

In God's system (Mosaic law), they would go before the judges, plead their case, bring evidence (eg witnesses), and something would be decided. The U.S. was originally based on Jethro and Moses' method. Over time, the self-centered and godless people did to it what the Pharisees did to the other system. It was no longer about what's good or even doable for human beings. I also like that the Biblical law, from command…

[dead]

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

#343

Post by alabastervlog »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #93
josefritzishere wrote: post #3

Texas is not known as a bastion of civil rights.

Anyone remember why they were so desperate so leave Mexico to go independent and get annexed by the US?

Texas: the only US state that seceded twice to preserve slavery.

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

#344

Post by foxglacier »

atoav wrote: post #91
kubb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this where the whole Europe bashing on social media comes from? US needing to believe that a better society, rule of law, social services isn’t real in Europe and impossible in general?

I mean if you think the US is the greatest country on earth, but for some reason needs to made great "again" and that has to involve scapegoating then having an ally where they solved most of the problems you are having with simple commons sense measures isn't all that attractive. It amazing how US billionaires managed to have a majority vote against their interest and endure this shitshow. Time for the US to realize…

If you think people are voting against their own interests, what's probably happening is you don't know what their interests are and don't even realize that you don't know. Other people's interests are obviously not the same as yours but often they're not even what they publicly claim so you won't find out without actual empathy and effort. But it's easier to just be a bigot than understand other cultures.

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

#345

Post by cwmma »

ajross wrote: post #269
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. H…

In most countries it's the judge who oversees discovery not the rival lawyers to avoid the whole 'using discovery as a weapon to waste your opponents money' issue while still allowing for the right evidence to come to light.

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

#346

Post by alabastervlog »

FilosofumRex wrote: post #305
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An 800 page lawsuit full of conspiracy theories? Sounds legit.

It's technically public record and is available for your review. Both men are highly educated and had no prior records which is why they've been able to fight their cases. one is a Yale/Harvard mathematician and actually worked for the Lincoln & Draper Labs where he alleges Epstein was funding the lie-detector cheating research. The other had been a research fellow with MIT Energy Initiative and was at the Media Lab…

> lie-detector cheating research

I'm sure (?) they had some better angle on it than this, but I'm laughing here imagining some poor, incredibly bored researchers going "did lie detectors actually work this time, despite not working in the prior 1,000 studies we ran? Let me check... nope, sure didn't! Oh well, we'll start the next study tomorrow, I wonder what the outcome will be..."

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

#347

Post by geodel »

nukem222 wrote: post #232
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…

Let's not forget how the Massachusetts AG (Carmen Ortiz) (hopefully) unintentionally drove Aaron Schwartz to suicide to protect the sanctity of elsevier's IP. Even our most obviously rotten institutions are placed on a higher pedestal than human life and recognizable justice.

So AGs are suppose to flout or ignore the laws as long offense is against a disliked company and defendant is an activist?

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

#348

Post by ty6853 »

monkey_monkey wrote: post #310
ty6853 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live next to the us-mexico border, in a place with basically no police services. There are (true) signs everywhere warning of cartels roaming, often with automatic weapons diverted from the Mexican military. Maybe they won't ever bother me, but better to have and not need, than the other way around.

I mean, if the cartel with their automatic weapons come at you, do you really think your stash is going to protect you? Also, lack of police services is probably commensurate with the low levels of taxation that so many Americans desperately want and vote for.

Well they are outnumbered. So if one of their guys get killed one of 10 times they fuck with the locals, that is enough to persuade them not to do it. Of course they could eliminate me, but can they do it without one of theirs getting hurt? Probably, but not probably enough to make it worth their time.

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

#349

Post by alabastervlog »

mjevans wrote: post #333
alabastervlog wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We once had a purse stolen out of a car (our bad, shouldn't have been left out there, and we left the car unlocked, total fuckup on our part). A credit card from it was used twice at a gas station (cameras galore) that is not near anything—except it's the last gas station on the route to the local, rural-located (little other reason to be out there) Amazon distribution center. We lived in a typical dead-end shitty su…

Reform is necessary. In a literal and figurative sense both. Reform the Police should be the message. Make the Police force live up to that old line "to serve and protect", to provide justice. Yeah, to get proper value out of a service it usually needs a little more funding, not less.

Get rid of them, replace the traffic part with a dedicated and much-cheaper traffic enforcement group, and start over with a far smaller police force (no more traffic enforcement, which is a ton of the work they do) with completely different training. The current form of police forces needs to be replaced, the fundamental structure is broken, it's not fixable.

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

#350

Post by throwaway17_17 »

rafram wrote: post #321
shkkmo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being put on the sex offender registry happens after conviction. The comment you are responding to is talking about how unconvictable trumped up charges are used to scare people into taking pleas so your challenge doesn't make sense in context.

OK, I would challenge you to find a single case, reported in the media, in which a defendant took a plea deal rather than face charges that included mandatory sex offender registration for nothing more than public urination. If that has ever happened, surely it would've been reported on at least once, right?

I am uniquely qualified to respond to your question in that over my career I have represented 4,000+ criminal defendants. It is incredibly common for defendants to take lower charges to avoid consequences. This is nearly uniformly true for sex offenses which require registration. While obviously not able to use individual client names, I can guarantee I have personally represented hundreds of defendants who pled to a felony obscenity charge to avoid to avoid registration as a sex offender.
Post reply on HN