|
quote:Leipold looked at the records in more than 75,000 federal criminal trials from 1989 through 2002. In about three-quarters of the cases, defendants chose to have a jury rather than a judge decide the outcome, as is their right under the Constitution. This was generally not a smart move. Judges convicted about 55 percent of the time, while the jury conviction rate was a whopping 84 percent. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1484032,00.html#ixzz0y4p2vrr7 If only someone had seen fit to mandate that juries be impartial when judging crimes, maybe put the rule somewhere prominent and even take it out for a spin every now and then... Instead we have a prosecutor that literally values your livelihood and lifestyle less than taking an extra half hour for lunch. One that will do everything to discredit you and convince the jury you are a bad person. Add a jury conditioned through mass media that all who are on trial are guilty and the few innocents will always be freed in a surprise twist of events. Not paid a meaningful wage, many have negative incentives to be present and will vote for expediency. quote:The results surprised almost all the lawyers — defense attorneys as well as prosecutors ... Top two theories from the article: 1. Prosecutors don't do their job (by not preparing), but only on misdemeanors or minor crimes which should generally be the simplest in terms of evidence and preparation time. 2. Judges are refusing to enforce mandatory draconic punishments because they seem immoral. Well, that's a relief! Good thing it's not 3. Prosecutors select jurors based on perceived ability to influence and control the jurors thoughts and emotions and they are unable to so readily select judges. I don't mean to claim that's the whole picture, but these are soft skills here, it's easy to see how we don't have hard data on comparative gullibility and persuasiveness in our court systems and the conclusion is reasonable. And despicable. baquerd fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Aug 30, 2010 |
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 09:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
baquerd posted:Instead we have a prosecutor that literally values your livelihood and lifestyle less than taking an extra half hour for lunch. One that will do everything to discredit you and convince the jury you are a bad person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 10:17
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:we can't really criticize prosecutors for pushing cases with all possible force, unless they are knowingly prosecuting an innocent man. http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/conviction.html quote:Police and prosecutors coerce witnesses and knowingly use false testimony. When this isn't enough, they fabricate evidence. In an analysis of 62 known wrongful convictions, Scheck found that prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence in 43 percent of the cases, knowingly used false testimony in 22 percent of the cases, coerced witnesses in 13 percent and fabricated evidence in 3 percent of the cases. 2 out of 3 times when a conviction goes wrong, it's due to prosecutorial misconduct, frequently overlapping with police misconduct. Self-evident conspiracy, yet where is their jail sentence? quote:If our "panel of judges" is correct, this means that the U.S. criminal justice system might be accurate in about 99.5 percent of the cases of felony conviction. That suggests, perhaps, a level of accuracy that might inspire great confidence. However, one’s perspective on the magnitude of the problem might change when one considers the overall volume of cases processed through the U.S. criminal justice system. For example, in the year 2000 there were 2.2 million arrests in the United States for index crimes alone. We also know that about 70 percent of those arrested for felonies are ultimately convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. This means that if we assume that the system was 99.5 percent accurate in those cases and made errors in only one-half of 1 percent (0.5 percent) of those convictions, that rate of error would have produced about 7,500 wrongful convictions among those 2.2 million arrested for index crimes. So a small error rate in a very large system can result in thousands of miscarriages of justice and allow many of the criminals who actually committed those crimes to remain free to victimize others. Assuming our justice system gets it right 99.5% of the time, this year 7,500 innocent people will be wrongfully convicted. Do you think it's really that good? Edit: removed crap from D&D thought I was grandstanding in GBS baquerd fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Aug 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 10:46
|
|
|
baquered, it always surprises me when certain judges have certain conviction rates. Just insane. The whole system of having a "Judge" seem to be broken today. Why is a punishment with a range of minimum and maximum made on the whim of a Judge's emotions and feelings? It's like playing Russian roulette with people's lives, get the wrong judge and you're hosed out of 10 more years. If someone does a crime, let there be a fair punishment for it, not one that fluctuates on if the judge has had his or her morning coffee. I remember one court in Japan had a 100% conviction rate for years. That's right, 100 loving percent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
The part about judges not convicting because of federal sentencing guidelines made me think of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lDr3DQnHo The guy makes a great point about how we don't punish people until BAM someone gets slapped with 10 years in prison for the same thing that people get away with every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
Thoren posted:baquered, it always surprises me when certain judges have certain conviction rates. Just insane. The whole system of having a "Judge" seem to be broken today. Why is a punishment with a range of minimum and maximum made on the whim of a Judge's emotions and feelings? It's like playing Russian roulette with people's lives, get the wrong judge and you're hosed out of 10 more years. If someone does a crime, let there be a fair punishment for it, not one that fluctuates on if the judge has had his or her morning coffee. The problem is that the law is not evenly applied by the prosecutor either. The same crime can merit different punishments depending on the circumstances of the case. Maximum sentencing guidelines should be put in place, but no minimums and certainly not a "flat" sentence applied arbitrarily to all found guilty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 15:27
|
|
|
baquerd posted:The problem is that the law is not evenly applied by the prosecutor either. The same crime can merit different punishments depending on the circumstances of the case. Maximum sentencing guidelines should be put in place, but no minimums and certainly not a "flat" sentence applied arbitrarily to all found guilty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:The part about judges not convicting because of federal sentencing guidelines made me think of this: This guy is brilliant, and no one will ever listen to him. He has a clear and logical plan for reducing the prison population and crime. Unfortunately prison isn't a tool for reducing crime, it has no specific purpose. Many interests enjoy prisons existence and most have no incentive for their populations to be reduced. Prison guard unions for example, or owners of private prisons have an oposite incentive. Families of victims, and victims rights organizations likewise enjoy large prisons. Prosecutors would much rather put away one person for 25 years than 25 people for 1 year, it's 25x more work and adds less to their prestige. Businesses that use prison (slave) labor don't want less workers. Local politicians love the extra "constituents" and jobs for their community. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 16:24 on Aug 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I remember one court in Japan had a 100% conviction rate for years. That's right, 100 loving percent. The Japanese criminal justice system is an absolute goddamn nightmare. The conviction rate is still routinely over 90% mostly because they will hold suspects without visitors or access to legal council for as long as legally possible while badgering them to sign confessions, sometimes multiple times per day, every day until they either crack or have to be released. Most cases aren't even brought to trial unless it's a guaranteed slam dunk. It's also very much a "guilty until proven innocent" system, hearkening back to the legal system under the Tokugawa bakufu, itself based on Neo-Confucian concepts of justice. Don't take my word for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 19:46
|
|
|
Protocol 5 posted:The Japanese criminal justice system is an absolute goddamn nightmare. The conviction rate is still routinely over 90% mostly because they will hold suspects without visitors or access to legal council for as long as legally possible while badgering them to sign confessions, sometimes multiple times per day, every day until they either crack or have to be released. Most cases aren't even brought to trial unless it's a guaranteed slam dunk. It's also very much a "guilty until proven innocent" system, hearkening back to the legal system under the Tokugawa bakufu, itself based on Neo-Confucian concepts of justice. The funny thing is is that they have seemingly the worst possible most screwed up system you could even imagine but still only send people to jail 7% as much as the US does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 19:56
|
|
|
 Robert King, internationally-recognized prison reform activist and Angola 3 member who spent 29 years in solitary, wrote an article for the Guardian on Saturday. quote:'I talk about my years in solitary as if it was the past, but the truth is it never leaves you. In some ways I am still there' Bonus: Interview / mini-lecture featuring King and Dr. Terry Kupers, world-renowned expert on prison mental health issues and Human Rights Watch consultant. Covers race issues, the effects of solitary, and more. A must-see. Also, King and Kupers on slavery at Angola King makes pralines from scratch using a prison recipe and sells them to finance much of his activism- three dollars at a time. He calls them 'Freelines.' He also stayed behind during Katrina to make them for rescue workers.  Robert King posted:In 1962, I learned to make candy from a fellow prisoner named 'Cap Pistol.' Over the years, using a stove made from cans and tissue, I perfected the recipe. Now that I'm free, I can make life a little 'sweeter' for you! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 22:40
|
|
|
Some death penalty information re: race, courtesy of dm
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ I would note that at least around here (Rural/Suburban Northern California) our District Attorney's Offices are more diverse than local law firms (so are Public Defender's offices). In some part, I think that graph is more reflective of the demographics of 50-60 year old lawyers (who are the higherups)than anything else. (This doesn't mean that these inequalities don't gently caress things up. Also, there have been arguments that black DAs are no more fair than white DAs when faced with black defendants. Paul Butler, a former black prosecutor in DC turned law professor, has discussed how he may have been even baised against black defendants that white prosecutors, wanting to prove that he "was like them." "Othering" is a huge problem in the criminal justice system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:The part about judges not convicting because of federal sentencing guidelines made me think of this: That was wonderful. Shame on this loving country for not listening to men like him. Also I love the Braid (video game) music in the video, haha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 03:14
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:
Read that and totally meant to post it in this thread. That poor guy. The internal strength he possesses is utterly astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Assuming our justice system gets it right 99.5% of the time, this year 7,500 innocent people will be wrongfully convicted. Do you think it's really that good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Do I think the current American justice system is good? Most certainly not. I was just pointing out that 'discrediting you and convincing the jury you're a bad person' is kind of the prosecutor's job, even in an ideal implementation of an adversarial system. what if they just stuck to proving you did a thing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 23:11
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I was just pointing out that 'discrediting you and convincing the jury you're a bad person' is kind of the prosecutor's job, even in an ideal implementation of an adversarial system. No, it's not. See Rule of Evidence 404b. [link] The prosecutors job is to prove that you did this particular, specific crime; the one you are accused of committing. This is founding fathers stuff. Under our system, a trial is to determine whether you did a specific bad thing at a specific time, NOT whether you're a bad person; bad person evidence is specifically prohibited. On the other hand, as a practical matter, the exceptions to 404b have swallowed the rule. e:link joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Aug 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:The part about judges not convicting because of federal sentencing guidelines made me think of this: FF1: "No poo poo we have more people in prison than China does, they execute so many people, including infant girls!!!" FF2: "Yep, and if we did that we'd probably have less crime. If criminals couldn't get endless appeals and we could actually kill some now and then people might actually stop committing crime"  There was more after this about prison rape and what a magical bit of humor that is. It comes up in these threads all the times, but how do you even begin to combat this attitude? Both of these guys have notions about criminal justice that are flatly, objectively wrong. In addition, they seems utterly inhuman when they joke about rape as an appropriate punishment. Is there something unique to America that makes this stuff acceptable to us while the rest of the developed world generally regards it as barbaric?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No, it's not. See Rule of Evidence 404b. [link] The prosecutors job is to prove that you did this particular, specific crime; the one you are accused of committing. This is founding fathers stuff. Under our system, a trial is to determine whether you did a specific bad thing at a specific time, NOT whether you're a bad person; bad person evidence is specifically prohibited. Establishing that the accused is somehow morally corrupt is, has been, and always will be a part of any adversarial criminal proceeding. Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Sep 1, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No, it's not. See Rule of Evidence 404b. [link] The prosecutors job is to prove that you did this particular, specific crime; the one you are accused of committing. This is founding fathers stuff. Under our system, a trial is to determine whether you did a specific bad thing at a specific time, NOT whether you're a bad person; bad person evidence is specifically prohibited. what about 607-609
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The rule disallows certain kinds of evidence to be used in pursuit of demonstrating that you're a bad person, not that goal in itself. See 404a just above, specifically permitting "evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused." JudicialRestraints posted:what about 607-609 404a says a Defendant can open the door to character evidence. If and only if the Defendant uses character evidence, then the State can rebut with character evidence. There are exceptions to 404b, where evidence of other bad acts can come in, but only to show intent, motive, absence of mistake, plan, knowledge, etc. When this stuff comes in, it comes in with a limiting instruction that it can be used only for the limited purpose of showing intent, motive, absence of mistake, plan, knowledge, (whatever the State said they needed it for) and not as character evidence. Even when this evidence comes in, the State is prohibited from arguing character. 607-609 work the same way - there are limiting instructions for this evidence, too; it can be used only for gauging credibility, not guilt/innocence. (exception: prior inconsistent statements made under oath, if you've laid a proper foundation) For 609, this is an improvement from the common law days when a felon was considered an incompetent witness and could not testify at all, ever. P.S. 404b doesn't apply if you're accused of a sex crime - see 413/414 (but 403 still applies) P.P.S. Limiting instructions are worthless, unless the DA is dumb enough to actually argue a Defendant's bad character. Strudel Man posted:Establishing that the accused is somehow morally corrupt is, has been, and always will be a part of any adversarial criminal proceeding. If you're talking about what the law allows or intends, unequivocally no. If you're talking about what happens anyway and what gets taught/trained at prosecutor CLE conferences, unequivocally yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 13:39
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:I was watching this video in the watch room at the fire department I volunteer at and got some pretty sad but all too typical reactions. I don't know if you will find this very useful, but I typed this up anyway. China doesn't report how many executions it performs each year, but current estimates put the number between 5,000 and 6,000 per year but going as high as 10,000 per year in 2005 (from Wikipedia). That's definitely not enough executions each year to account for the fact that the US has ~734,645 more prisoners than China especially when you consider that China's population is about 4.3 times greater than the US's population.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/d8u5d/my_friend_from_high_school_is_on_death_row_here/ A girl on Reddit has a friend on death row. This is a letter he wrote her from there. Some quotes: To save money on heating and cooling, the air in this building is overly recirculated. This means, of course, more carbon dioxide and less oxygen. Worst of all, they will turn the air flow down so much that we often cannot feel any air coming out of our vents for months at a time. Because of all this, we are suffering Hypoxic Hypoxia. All of us prisoners are lethargic and couldn't exercise even if we had the space to do so. We all have short term memory loss and trouble concentrating. It is probable that we are all suffering at least mild brain damage. Malnourishment and oxygen deprivation is causing our bodies to grow old very rapidly. Prisoners not even thirty years old are going gray and losing hair. We have bone joint and muscle problems. We have lines in our faces that young people should not have. My body is so broken down, especially my mind. All jails and prisons in the U.S. conduct in activity that the world court condemns as torture. Guards will shock people with electricity, strap naked prisoners to a chair and hose them down with ice cold water, spray C-S gas and pepper spray into the faces of chained prisoners, deprive people of sleep, and deny medicine that treats painful illnesses. According to the U.S. Constitution we are slaves and have no civil rights. That's why our torture is legal. That's why I call myself Nemo. Jesus loving Christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
Holy gently caress, and I thought that running air conditioning up way too high was the only way you could torture people with an HVAC system. I guess I'm not cruel enough to think of slowly suffocating people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:I was watching this video in the watch room at the fire department I volunteer at and got some pretty sad but all too typical reactions. Whenever I have to point out to someone how wrong they are about the prison system, I usually start with the prison population, and the fact that many people are in prison because of victimless crimes. From there I usually move on to discussing how horrible and inhumane all forms of execution are, innocent people on death row that have been released or executed, and that states with capital punishment have higher recidivism rates. Finally, I usually bring prison conditions as a whole (i.e. gangs, brutality, torture, etc.), and the U.S. mentality of punishment instead of rehabilitation and how these problems lead to recidivism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
olylifter posted:To save money on heating and cooling, the air in this building is overly recirculated. This means, of course, more carbon dioxide and less oxygen. For what it's worth, this seems unlikely, not the effects but the cause. For one, the guards are breathing the same air. baquerd fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Sep 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 06:17
|
|
|
baquerd posted:For what it's worth, this seems unlikely, not the effects but the cause. For one, the guards are breathing the same air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 06:22
|
|
|
baquerd posted:For what it's worth, this seems unlikely, not the effects but the cause. For one, the guards are breathing the same air. It seems very likely, once you have a building of a certain size HVAC becomes a necessary factor. There are systems that don't do a great job in tons of office buildings and so there is nothing unthinkable about the system being set up by someone that did a bunch of math to figure it out then it being controlled by a guard who spun the dials whatever way he felt was funniest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 12:13
|
|
|
I mean you need a masters in mechanical engineering to design the sort of complex airflow systems really large buildings have and it seems incredibly obvious that in a building no one cares about people would just do whatever and subvert the design. I don't think anyone is like intentionally making gas chambers exactly, I think it's that prison guards don't actually understand what havc does and think they are just being slightly jerkish to some prisoners by not replacing a fan or turning the airflow lower than the design said it'd be at. havc is serious business!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 15:32
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro - or anyone else who might remember - I know that you posted in one of these topics previously a really great list of solutions that you thought could make the prison system a significantly better place. For example, one item on the list was having prisoners make phone calls to cancel credit cards, pay off debts, and make funeral arrangements if they were convicted of murder. Could anyone who has access to this list repost it here or just link me to it? I looked through all of HFG's posts here and couldn't find it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Soap Scum posted:HidingFromGoro - or anyone else who might remember - I know that you posted in one of these topics previously a really great list of solutions that you thought could make the prison system a significantly better place. For example, one item on the list was having prisoners make phone calls to cancel credit cards, pay off debts, and make funeral arrangements if they were convicted of murder. A trial for murder will take place long after the crime takes place, at which time the victim has long since had their funeral. While it seems like a good idea it just won't work in practice. Unless of course someone comes forward right after the crime and confesses guilt, but even then I have my doubts that the victim's family wants anything to do with the confessed murderer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:I vaguely remember the list, but I have to say something about that idea. I never read the list, but I assumed he was talking about if the person was a murderer and was sentenced to death In which case, doing all of those things makes a little more sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
No surprise here, Maricopa County has decided not to prosecute the guards who killed 48-year-old Marcia Powell by leaving her in an oven-like metal "punishment cage" in the AZ sun. http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/09/marcia_powells_death_unavenged.php quote:The Maricopa County Attorney's Office has chosen not to prosecute Arizona Department of Corrections staff in the death of inmate Marcia Powell. Also note that the narrative of retributive justice has been used for so long, that even one of the most outspoken critics of Joe Arpaio is using words like "unavenged."
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:I never read the list, but I assumed he was talking about if the person was a murderer and was sentenced to death In which case, doing all of those things makes a little more sense. I'm just saying that while it's a good idea, the "convict someone of murder" takes place on a longer timeline than "bury someone who was murdered" and doesn't take into account the victim's family reticence with having to do anything with those accused of murder. I say accused because the body will be dead in the ground (or as applies for cremation) long before a trial takes place (again, outside of direct confession). I'm just saying it seems like a good idea until you take into account the other side and the variable of the family of the victim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Also MCSO is organized crime funded by taxpayers. Just wanted to put this in a different post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
e: nvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 13:19
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:It makes sense, however trials that don't involve an immediate confession tend to take weeks to months, especially capital murder 1 cases where the death penalty comes into play. And I consider that a GOOD thing, that it takes time to make certain that the person accused of murder has been found guilty of it beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, the time taken to make certain that the person who committed a murder did so in such a way as to be killed by the state takes far more time than what it takes for the victim to be buried and all of the other very crappy end of life stuff would have already taken place. HidingFromGoro posted:Marcia Powell story
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
baquerd posted:http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/spring2003/conviction.html Do you have statistics on how often defense attorneys attempt to suppress incriminating evidence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Do you have statistics on how often defense attorneys attempt to suppress incriminating evidence? I think there's a bit of the difference between the two. A defense attorney's job is to defend their client whether they be innocent or guilty. A prosecutor works for government so intuitively their job should be to see justice served. So, if they know their victim is innocent they oughtta let them go eh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:19
|
|
