Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

431–440 of 457 posts

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

#431
post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The primary purpose of occupational licensing is to reduce the number of people who can participate in the occupation. Test doctors and judges and hair stylists alike based on whether they can do the job, not whether they have a piece of paper. Thousands of judges in 28 states are doing the job just fine even though they haven’t got that piece of paper. Requiring them to get one isn’t going to fix any problems.

> Test doctors and judges and hair stylists alike based on whether they can do the job This is exactly what the piece of paper shows when you get it from an accredited and reputable institution. What is your proposal? Do surgery until you stop killing people to prove that you can do them now?

Why assume that death has to be involved? That’s just a strawman argument.

Accreditation is an incredibly low bar; all it tells you is that the institution has the right number and type of courses. All a degree tells you is that the student passed some of those classes. But grades in classes do not tell you much about actual ability. And reputation just means that the school has good advertising. It’s not like you can sample a bunch of schools to find out which is actually the best.

Doctors still need to be trained before treating patients but there’s no reason we have to require them to attend so many years of school. If we use our imaginations we can probably come up with alternatives that still achieve that goal. Some of those alternatives would have fewer drawbacks than the system we use today.

For example, our existing schools have the drawback that the school itself decides whether the student was successfully educated. Just as when police departments investigate themselves after a complaint tend to determine that their officers did nothing wrong, schools that investigate themselves tend to find that their professors did all that was necessary and that their students are all perfectly educated. Accreditation was an attempt to solve that kind of problem but it is much too weak to be effective.

Notice also that schools mostly make their students pay up front before success or failure has even been determined. You wouldn’t pay a contractor up front to fix your roof because they’d be tempted to take your money and disappear. You might pay half up front if you’re feeling generous, but even that still has some risk.

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

#432
post #345
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That seems like a distinction without meaning. "Rival lawyers" don't "oversee" discovery. They make requests to the judge, who decides on their validity and issues orders. It's just a formalized suggestion.

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

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European NATO members were well within their rights to refuse to participate in Afghanistan when America invoked Article 5 (read it!). They should have in fact, because it was a bullshit war and they knew it at the time. They chose to participate anyway and have been whining about it ever since. Fine, mistakes were made, but now you lot should be happy to put distance between yourselves and America and take on full r…

Region as in "relatively close to Europe". Immigrants are coming all the way from Middle East where US performs the operations, not our neighboring countries. Russian thing is all EU fault. Glut for cheap oil made putin think he has a big bargaining chip against EU and that this will all be a simple task. I don't know what propaganda media you get your information from, but people of Europe are not gloating or thinki…

> but people of Europe are not gloating or thinking you are stupid. I work for a company that has US offices (as many Europeans do) and we work very well together. We travel a lot between countries and work face to face and there have never been any problems.

I think this is a mixed bag, but also I think the perception is there. There is a lot of "Scandinavia does this perfectly" talk that creates the perception in the US, even if perhaps no one in Scandinavia is the least bit bothered either way!

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

#434
post #432
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That seems like a distinction without meaning. "Rival lawyers" don't "oversee" discovery. They make requests to the judge, who decides on their validity and issues orders. It's just a formalized suggestion.

In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example:

Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing."

Blue-Team Lawyer: "That's overly broad and many of those emails contain proprietary confidential and trade-secret information, which is protected. My client will not provide them."

Judge, intervening after objections are filed: "Counsel, under FRCP 26(b)(1), discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case. Red Team, narrow the timeframe to 2015–2020 and limit the search to emails involving R&D leads and marketing executives. Blue Team, designate confidential portions under FRCP 26(c) as 'Attorneys’ Eyes Only' and produce a privilege log for withheld items. Failure to comply may result in sanctions under FRCP 37."

Every single part of this costs money and takes time. It usually takes a judge ~1-3 months to rule on discovery disputes. Filing the dispute is non-trivial. And "designating confidential portions" can provide junior attorneys with months of work.

That's hardly even the tip of the iceberg. There are so many sneaky tactics you can use in discovery that entire books have been written about them. For instance: https://jamespublishing.com/product/guerrilla-discovery/

Whereas if both sides just provide their evidence to a judge's office which compiles them into an account, all of this cost and effort is spared.

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

#435
post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a distinction without meaning. "Rival lawyers" don't "oversee" discovery. They make requests to the judge, who decides on their validity and issues orders. It's just a formalized suggestion.

In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example: Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing." Blue-Team Lawyer…

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But again that's semantics[1]. You ask for stuff via some mechanism, even an informal one, argue about it as necessary, and a third party adjudicator decides what you're allowed to.

Basically you're complaint here is about formality and paperwork. Which, fine. It sucks. But the fact that it exists is precisely what prevents someone from doing stuff like paying off the judge or just destroying evidence. I don't love it either but I sure as shit know which system I'd rather be living under.

[1] It's also actually wrong as a matter of pedantic fact: discovery requests are court filings and are made "to" the court, not the opposing counsel. But again, that's a distinction without meaning.

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

#436
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example: Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing." Blue-Team Lawyer…

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But again that's semantics[1]. You ask for stuff via some mechanism, even an informal one, argue about it as necessary, and a third party adjudicator decides what you're allowed to. Basically you're complaint here is about formality and paperwork. Which, fine. It sucks. But the fact that it exists is precisely what prevents someone from doing stuff like paying off the judge or just destroying eviden…

Discovery does nothing to prevent either party from destroying or withholding evidence. There are penalties if the destroying/evading party is caught, but, in order to be caught, the other side usually has to have an idea of what's missing. So, in effect, systems without discovery work just as well or better: They enable you to show the court what you know and how you know it.

"Paying off the judge" is not a systems-level problem; it's the sort of thing that has been criminal for as long as man has had legal systems. You can't point to it as an example of "legal system is good" or "legal system is broken." Doesn't work that way.

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

#437
post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking only for myself, I think Europeans, in general (and most people in this thread) have no real sense for how violent the US really is, how much more crime we have than Europe, how many of our violent offenders serve no serious time, or how many times the modal US prisoner has been previously arrested or convicted of a crime. The typical US prisoner 1) did their crime; 2) did many other crimes besides the one t…

Your solution to crime isn’t working very well, but that’s OK, nobody’s telling you what to do. We can just observe the society you have and wonder how you can simultaneously not take responsibility for your outcomes, and bash others who make different choices and have better outcomes. From your post it sounds like you feel that you do know better, and the only issue you’re having isn’t your policy, but your “lack of…

> Your solution to crime isn’t working very well

That's correct. We should have a lot more people in prison than we do. We are far too soft on repeat offenders and we've allowed courts to deem unconstitutional practices that literally nobody at the founding would have thought were questionable.

When you talk to people about "mass incarceration" in the abstract, they think it's bad. But when you show them what the modal prisoner and the modal prison sentence is actually like, they think it's too soft. Opposition to "tough on crime" policies is based on the myth (the lie?) that most US prisoners are innocent or, if not innocent, guilty only of harmless crimes like drug possession -- that the system is racist and unfair.

But that's not what the data show.

What the data show -- again -- is that the modal prisoner did the crime, and many others besides, and that they are very likely to commit more crimes once released.

Criminal justice is not a mysterious science. You identify repeat offenders and then you execute or otherwise permanently incapacitate them. This works because a large share of all crime is committed by repeat offenders.

But of course that's probably not what you mean when you say that our solution to crime isn't working well.

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

#438
post #423
post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution to crime isn’t working very well, but that’s OK, nobody’s telling you what to do. We can just observe the society you have and wonder how you can simultaneously not take responsibility for your outcomes, and bash others who make different choices and have better outcomes. From your post it sounds like you feel that you do know better, and the only issue you’re having isn’t your policy, but your “lack of…

very reasonable observation. :) i can tell you being physically strong comes with it violence and is at the fabric of being an American. so i’d say the issue is complicated and nuanced as is most. breaking the law (through violence) is also American. we stand up for what we believe in. even if it means breaking the law and going against our government. this is America. the fact that you have better outcomes for crime…

I can respect that breaking the law is American, and by all means, go for it.

In general life in Europe is pretty good and could be better, thanks for asking. We can invest, we watch different sports than you do and we don't have a comparable military. The stock market is fine, the currency is fine.

I guess the social media campaign is addressed at those of you, who would like less crime, and who would like rule of law, and less aggression, and a safer lifesytle. To lie to them and tell them that having these things leads to downfall or something.

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

#439
post #438
post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very reasonable observation. :) i can tell you being physically strong comes with it violence and is at the fabric of being an American. so i’d say the issue is complicated and nuanced as is most. breaking the law (through violence) is also American. we stand up for what we believe in. even if it means breaking the law and going against our government. this is America. the fact that you have better outcomes for crime…

I can respect that breaking the law is American, and by all means, go for it. In general life in Europe is pretty good and could be better, thanks for asking. We can invest, we watch different sports than you do and we don't have a comparable military. The stock market is fine, the currency is fine. I guess the social media campaign is addressed at those of you, who would like less crime, and who would like rule of l…

i did say violently breaking the law is American.

and i did also say it was complicated and nuanced so please do not ignore that detail of my comment.

i’m glad to hear life is good, and to hear you’re humble enough to acknowledge it could be better. it could be better over here, too. are we doing it right or are you? i have no idea. :)

we’re probably both doing things right and wrong. should it even be solved? are we just living a Memento (great movie) like existence where we’re keeping ourselves busy and at war because if we all got along we would over-populate the planet and destroy earth?

what if our ignorant violent human behavior is actually an environmental mitigation technique?

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

#440
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In US Federal court, rival lawyers don't make requests to the judge, they make requests of each other. The judge is merely a referee, who adjudicates disputes that arise as part of the process. Example: Red-Team Lawyer: "Provide us with all emails from 1/1/2010 through 1/1/2020, inclusive, that include or mention [product x] or are of relevance to its research, development, production, or marketing." Blue-Team Lawyer…

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But again that's semantics[1]. You ask for stuff via some mechanism, even an informal one, argue about it as necessary, and a third party adjudicator decides what you're allowed to. Basically you're complaint here is about formality and paperwork. Which, fine. It sucks. But the fact that it exists is precisely what prevents someone from doing stuff like paying off the judge or just destroying eviden…

Let's stop this tail-chasing and get to the bottom of the true difference: US (and most common-law) judges are neutral arbiters, strictly opining based on what evidence is there (Adversarial System). This is not how it works in civil-law systems, especially Germanic ones (of which PRC has retained more-or-less despite its communist history), which are entrusted to discover the truth, even if it seems to favor a party, and can do things that would be very questionable in an adversarial system, such as directly calling witnesses (Inquisitorial System).
Post reply on HN