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

441–450 of 457 posts

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

#441

Post by dragonwriter »

zinekeller wrote: post #440
ajross wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_614

Rule 614. Court’s Calling or Examining a Witness

(a) Calling. The court may call a witness on its own or at a party’s request. Each party is entitled to cross-examine the witness.

(b) Examining. The court may examine a witness regardless of who calls the witness.

(c) Objections. A party may object to the court’s calling or examining a witness either at that time or at the next opportunity when the jury is not present.

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

#442

Post by dongkyun »

piokoch wrote: post #274

This is interesting, from the article it seems that authorities broken the law multiple times "[...] people regularly spend months behind bars without charges filed against them, much longer than state law allows." In such a litigious society like the one in the USA, what stops convicts from hiring the lawyer and suing authorities, there are many lawyers who would gladly work for success fee, if indeed the law was br…

I'm genuinely shocked at how "tort reform" (read: corporations trying to reduce liability as much as possible) propaganda has permeated the general consciousness.

- Liebeck initially only requested McDonald's cover the medical fees from going into shock and having 3rd degree burns over her lower body (including genitalia), which McDonald's refused and only offered $800.

- McDonald's had received hundreds of reports of the coffee scalding people.

- Liebeck didn't get the multi-million dollar payout because the judge reduced it 640k, trebled the compensatory damages, which is incredibly normal for punitives.

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

#443

Post by kubb »

tkjef wrote: post #439
kubb wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t think this needs to be solved. We should both strive for what each of us want to have.

Obviously in Europe there will be more variety because there’s more cultures and independent countries.

We have the advantage that we can take good ideas from each other, because people can travel easily and observe that certain things work well.

The US doesn’t have this benefit, since it’s so inward oriented. That’s fine, but don’t go saying Europeans don’t have freedom if you can only look at Europe through the domestic lens.

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

#444

Post by dionidium »

kubb wrote: post #443
tkjef wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don’t think this needs to be solved. We should both strive for what each of us want to have. Obviously in Europe there will be more variety because there’s more cultures and independent countries. We have the advantage that we can take good ideas from each other, because people can travel easily and observe that certain things work well. The US doesn’t have this benefit, since it’s so inward oriented. That’s fine,…

> We have the advantage that we can take good ideas from each other, because people can travel easily and observe that certain things work well.

True, but, interestingly, we can travel thousands of miles within the United States and in so doing observe that different US states have wildly different outcomes while living under the same federal government and very similar state governments.

Louisiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Minnesota live under the same Constitution, the same federal government, and with very similar state governments -- and yet we see that they have very different outcomes on a variety of measures.

Norway and Louisiana have very different crime rates, but so do New Hampshire and Louisiana. This tells us, at a minimum, that the form of government isn't likely to be the primary factor.

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

#445

Post by NoahZuniga »

DistractionRect wrote: post #53
crooked-v wrote: post #8

Merely "fails"? That sounds like apologetic underemphasis to me, like so many other Times stories. The system described is more like active oppression.

It's amazing how understated some parts are. Like they just casually mention > Like most Texas county judges, he does not have a law degree. I'm sorry, what? Anyone off the street can be a judge? That one line begs soo many questions, and at least some outrage, which is simply glossed over. Doing my own research, I guess I see why it's glossed over, because apparently this isn't uncommon - a quick search says that on…

Arguably, its not the judges responsibility to know the law, but that of the lawyers. Both sides should find the relevant laws and case law, and the judge then decides what applies.

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

#446

Post by rvba »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #69
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?

Not only that, but it explains the disdain for Europe in the current American government. European society proves that Americans could have true freedom and quality of life if it weren't for corporations and oligarchs effectively owning our government. Fascists hate a counterexample.

This is the exact reason why Putin invaded Ukraine.

Ukraine started to get closer to European Union: more transparent, more democratic, less corrupt and richer.

When Russians saw that it was possible in Ukraine, they would get rid of Putin. So he invaded.

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

#447

Post by neffy »

lurk2 wrote: post #292
marcus_holmes wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Berlin for a while. Most people don't own a car in Berlin. Not because of poverty, but because the city is walkable (you can walk from one side to the other in an afternoon, it's a lovely thing to do on a summer's day). Your metric of "own more cars" is not incorrect, just irrelevant. It's like saying that Europeans are wealthier because they are more likely to have a passport. Likewise for "substantially…

> It's like saying that Europeans are wealthier because they are more likely to have a passport. It’s not like that as we were discussing tangible measures of wealth. Can you provide any evidence that Europeans are materially wealthier than Americans? That is, that Europeans earn, own, and / or consume more than Americans?

But I don´t want to "consume" more than Americans. I want to eat healthy food in reasonable quantities and maintain a sensible weight.

I don´t want to own a car and drive 2 hours to work every day, and consume more car ownership - I want to cycle or walk, and stay fit and enjoy the sun.

You see the mistake you're making?

I lived in the US for 6 years, and could have stayed. It was an easy decision to go back to Europe.

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

#448

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

anon291 wrote: post #399
tetromino_ wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of public defenders is the least of the problems pointed out in the article. The presence of a public defender should not be the only thing keeping the system from losing track of who has been imprisoned, why, and for how long. The presence of a public defender should not be the only thing preventing judges and prosecutors from violating the state's sentencing guidelines. The system described in the article is i…

By no means am I excusing Texas, I'm just pointing out I've never seen any national expose on Oregon's lack of public defenders, and the fact that they end up freeing repeat offenders since they can't prosecute.

The fact that you didnt see blue states mentioned is reason enough to comment something about "biased NYT". Do you see the irony?

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

#449

Post by foxglacier »

atoav wrote: post #401
foxglacier wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up in a Austrian province governed by a neo-nazi connected right wing party, when I say voting against their interest who I mean are those who aren't ardent Nazis. Sure, there might be actual Nazis who would like to lose everything if it just allowed them to force their beliefs on others as was historically the case. But most people who vote for right wingers do so because they believe they will have tangible…

I don't understand what you mean. People in your province voted against their own interests because they believed (incorrectly?) that it would benefit them? How do you know what their interests were or whether it did benefit them in ways that were important to them or not?

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

#450

Post by ajross »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #436
ajross wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> Discovery does nothing to prevent either party from destroying or withholding evidence.

It literally criminalizes it! People go to jail and lawyers get disbarred for obstruction every year. And as a result reputable firms won't even try to dance around these things. If you're an attorney and get a subpoena or discovery request, you tell your client to freeze their backups right away and send repeated emails reminding them, then print them out and file them along with the response. This is true even if it's a ridiculous request you know you'll beat. Because you know if you fuck this up you'll lose your career.

I mean... have you ever actually talked to a corporate lawyer?

Post reply on HN