|
The difference is that all evidence goes through the prosecutor, and the defense is supposed to have unlimited access to it. I don't think there's any point where a defense attorney CAN suppress the evidence.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Do you have statistics on how often defense attorneys attempt to suppress incriminating evidence? Though my only expertise in law comes from Phoenix Wright, I would assume that in criminal cases, the Defense Attorney can't really gain access to the evidence, whereas the prosecutor could.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted: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? All I asked was whether or not he has any statistics relating to the behaviour of defence counsel; I'm not sure what exact meaning you read into that question, but your post seems a little off. The nature of their job and supposed duties has nothing to do with my question, unless you're arguing that defence attorneys are inferior and therefore less is to be expected of them (which may well be true). I see a similarity in the two forms of deceit, but let's not pretend I brought the subject up with people who appear to be rank outsiders. s0meb0dy0 posted:The difference is that all evidence goes through the prosecutor, and the defense is supposed to have unlimited access to it. I don't think there's any point where a defense attorney CAN suppress the evidence. 21stCentury posted:Though my only expertise in law comes from Phoenix Wright, I would assume that in criminal cases, the Defense Attorney can't really gain access to the evidence, whereas the prosecutor could. oh thank god, these motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence are simply figments of my imagination I haven't played Phoenix Wright, but it's supposed to be a good game, so isn't there a point in the game where the police (allegedly) seize evidence improperly and you make a motion to suppress it? Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
The Phoenix Wright series makes a complete mockery of evidence laws. They're still fun to play, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:oh thank god, these motions to quash arrest and suppress evidence are simply figments of my imagination
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:53
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:I haven't played Phoenix Wright, but it's supposed to be a good game, so isn't there a point in the game where the police (allegedly) seize evidence improperly and you make a motion to suppress it? There is a point where you ask a ghost to the stand soooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:If you're referring to evidence that is surpressed by a judge in a court of law, I think you're confused. That's a good (or at least essential) part of a fair trial. so you are telling me that judges always act sua sponte and defence attys don't make motions, or what EDIT: BattleMaster posted:The Phoenix Wright series makes a complete mockery of evidence laws. They're still fun to play, though. Yeh, I really want to play them for some reason, but I don't have a Nintendo DS. Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:so you are telling me that judges always act sua sponte and defence attys don't make motions, or what 1) When people say that a prosecutor suppresses evidence, they almost always mean illegal without a judge's oversight. Because otherwise there'd be nothing wrong with it. 2) A prosecutor legally getting evidence suppressed leans towards a guy going to jail. A defense attorney doing the same leads towards him going free. Obviously, the system should lean towards the latter. So what exactly are you complaining about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:so you are telling me that judges always act sua sponte and defence attys don't make motions, or what I never played it on the DS, but I got it for my Iphone, pretty great. Sorry for non-topic post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:08
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:They make motions, because that's how evidential laws work. I didn't complain about anything, I asked if he has a statistic. You're literally inventing a point and reading it into my posts, apparently so you can act like a prick about it. I'm glad you now realise that defence counsel makes motions, but I don't agree that any opinion you hold is "obvious", or that one evil magically cancels out another. Nonsense posted:I never played it on the DS, but I got it for my Iphone, pretty great. Huh, it's out on Iphone, never even knew that. I will have to nick the iphone off the missus and give it a go. it's a shame there's no prosecution, but I'll just pretend I'm Rumpole
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Do you have statistics on how often defense attorneys attempt to suppress incriminating evidence? Do you mean 'suppress' as in 'suppress the State's illegally obtained evidence?' or do you mean 'suppress' as in 'illegally hide from court and counsel evidence that would incriminate your client?' If the former, the prosecutorial and police misconduct stat covers it. If the latter, give some real-world examples. (e.g., the MPRE "your client's best friend gives you a gun and tells you your client told him that it's the murder weapon" hypothetical doesn't count)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:22
|
|
|
You said you wanted stats on a defense attorney's "attempts to suppress evidence". In a court of law, the court suppresses evidence. A defense attorney or a prosecutor may request that evidence be suppressed, but they don't "attempt" it. When a prosecutor "attempts" to suppress evidence, that means he's trying to do so outside the court of law. I get what you mean now, but perhaps you should watch your wording in the future before jumping down people's throats for responding to what you wrote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Do you mean 'suppress' as in 'suppress the State's illegally obtained evidence?' Suppress as in make a motion to suppress evidence. As in, how often do defence attorneys go around trying to stop incriminating evidence being admitted. I didn't think the prosecutorial and police misconduct stat would get it, because would that stat cover failed motions? Surely they don't count it as misconduct where no misconduct is found. s0meb0dy0 posted:You said you wanted stats on a defense attorney's "attempts to suppress evidence". In a court of law, the court suppresses evidence. A defense attorney or a prosecutor may request that evidence be suppressed, but they don't "attempt" it. If you were somehow confused by my first post, it would have been pretty clear what I meant the moment I mentioned motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Still, I never once raised a point about half the things you posted, so no, don't pretend like I was the one jumping down people's throats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:As in, how often do defence attorneys go around trying to stop incriminating evidence being admitted. I don't think you'd need statistics; the answer would be "pretty much all the time." In fact, it would be the defense attorney's duty as his or her client's representative to make any cognizable attempts to do so as possible. None of this is illegal nor an "evil," as you imply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Suppress as in make a motion to suppress evidence. As in, how often do defence attorneys go around trying to stop incriminating evidence being admitted. Lykourgos posted:If you were somehow confused by my first post, it would have been pretty clear what I meant the moment I mentioned motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. Still, I never once raised a point about half the things you posted, so no, don't pretend like I was the one jumping down people's throats. You said this: Lykourgos posted:If you were somehow confused by my first post, it would have been pretty clear what I meant the moment I mentioned motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. So I said this, acknowledging that I now understood what you meant: s0meb0dy0 posted:If you're referring to evidence that is surpressed by a judge in a court of law, I think you're confused. That's a good (or at least essential) part of a fair trial. Of course, you followed up with: Lykourgos posted:apparently so you can act like a prick about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:I don't think you'd need statistics; the answer would be "pretty much all the time." In fact, it would be the defense attorney's duty as his or her client's representative to make any cognizable attempts to do so as possible. None of this is illegal nor an "evil," as you imply. lol read my first post. where do I imply it is evil or wrong or illegal in any sense of the word? As for whether it is or not, I disagree. There is a certain breed of evil in suppressing incriminating evidence, especially given the sorts of results that can be reached. Then again, I never said anything about that, or even implied it, so... s0meb0dy0 posted:After which I understood why you were confused. You're using the legal "suppression" of evidence by the court and conflating it with illegal suppression of evidence by the prosecutor's office, which is what we were discussing. No, I didn't conflate it with anything. I was asking for a statistic, literally nothing more. Lykourgos fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:lol read my first post. where do I imply it is evil or wrong or illegal in any sense of the word?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:lol read my first post. where do I imply it is evil or wrong or illegal in any sense of the word? Lykourgos posted:I'm glad you now realise that defence counsel makes motions, but I don't agree that any opinion you hold is "obvious", or that one evil magically cancels out another. As for your other point, the state should not be allowed to profit from its crimes in illegally obtaining evidence any more than robbers should be permitted to profit from their crimes by retaining the stolen property. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:So, "I never implied it...but I happen to think that...you're an idiot you couldn't have known that don't assume". Huh. Sure, but like you said, it's all apparently off topic because you lot weren't talking about it. Hence I asked a specific, simple question about the statistic, and avoided anything new or inappropriate (for all the good it did).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:55
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted: the first post: Lykourgos posted:Do you have statistics on how often defense attorneys attempt to suppress incriminating evidence? I literally made no point; people just suddenly jumped in and stuffed words into my post that were never there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 03:57
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:
It was in reply to the prosecutorial misconduct post (you quoted it). There is a big difference between hiding evidence and preventing the evidence from being seen in front of the jury. For example, a prosecutor has a duty to turn over the criminal convictions of a witness. However, they may move to prevent the defense from entering the witness's DUI conviction and will likely win that motion. Evidence rules work on both end and have nothing to do with Brady et al. This persona you've been building needs a little more actual court time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 04:06
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:
And your first post is the only one of your posts that matters because. . .?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
nm posted:It was in reply to the prosecutorial misconduct post (you quoted it). Yes, hopeful that in addition to the bevy of statistics he posted, he might pull just one more out of his hat. quote:There is a big difference between hiding evidence and preventing the evidence from being seen in front of the jury. Very interesting, but every man and their dog has already said it to the wind in this thread. If you lot are going to foist this discussion upon the thread, though, then what do you mean by duty? Are you saying that the prosecutor has a duty to turn over the evidence according to the court rules, or are you saying that the prosecutor has the duty in the superior sense, as in it is evil for him not to do so (and therefore he ought to give it)? Because if you're talking about the former, then what you're saying has nothing to do with any point I'd maintain, no matter how much you lot kick and scream. If it's the latter, then you need to give some detail on the nature of right and wrong, and how this duty came to be, because your position isn't filled out to a point where I can really respond. Sir John Falstaff posted:And your first post is the only one of your posts that matters because. . .? ...because the rest of the posts consist of me stating that I never brought up any of those points, or attempted to engage in any discussion of them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:...because the rest of the posts consist of me stating that I never brought up any of those points, or attempted to engage in any discussion of them? But then your later post made the claim that the practice was "evil," as I quoted, and I responded to that post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 04:37
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:I don't think you'd need statistics; the answer would be "pretty much all the time." In fact, it would be the defense attorney's duty as his or her client's representative to make any cognizable attempts to do so as possible. None of this is illegal nor an "evil," as you imply. You're absolutely right. This is all legal, and it's for a good reason. It stops cops from doing illegal poo poo. The exclusionary rule is designed to stop cops from doing illegal searches. The courts have considered other solutions (give them a right to sue police departments) but I think this one is a pretty strong deterrent. It's not a right, it's a remedy to police misconduct. Right now, I'm talking about things people call "technicalities". Warrantless arrest, warrantless searches, and unreasonable searches and seizures.are all examples of "technicalities". This is a completely different debate. Other incriminating evidence HAS to be suppressed, because the evidence can lead to false convictions. Bad confessions, failure to provide counsel, suggestive identifications, and suggestive questioning techniques all belong here. Basically, courts hate the "technicalities" as much as any crime control advocate would, and there have been numerous exceptions to get around the exclusionary rule. I was once introduced to someone who was considered very experienced in getting evidence suppressed. They had gotten evidence suppressed less than 5 times. But I seriously doubt anyone wants the court to allow any incriminating evidence that could lead to a false conviction. If so, we need some badass defense attorneys that will call the police out on bad confessions and IDs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 04:40
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:Suppress as in make a motion to suppress evidence. As in, how often do defence attorneys go around trying to stop incriminating evidence being admitted. And what kind of evidence did you have in mind? Evidence code stuff? 403/404b, 608/609, 701/702, hearsay? Self-incrimination and right to counsel issues? actually, the DA raises these issues automatically because it's part of laying the foundation for admitting statements. search and seizure stuff? confrontation issues? More generally, The DA wants to bring in evidence that helps his/her case and wants to exclude evidence that hurts his/her case. Brady/Giglio puts some limits on the latter. The defense counsel wants to bring in evidence that helps his/her case and wants to keep that stuff that hurts his/her case. That's the nature of an adversarial system of justice. Usually, the State is bringing in the vast majority of the evidence in a case. This is due in part to its vast investigative resources compared to the defense but mostly because the State has the burden of proof. Thus, the defense is the side most often trying to keep evidence out. It's not that defense counsel try to keep evidence out more often that DAs do, it's that DA's have to bring more evidence to a trial. In an adversarial system, that's what you do. In situations where the two sides are on an equal footing, the State files as many motions to exclude the defense's evidence as the defense files against the State. How often does a party file a motion to exclude some kind of evidence? Every time there's an issue. Even when you know you're going to lose, because another Gant might come out tomorrow, and by not raising the issue you've waived it. On the other hand, either side will lose credibility by litigating bullshit issues, so there is a lower limit. When I get close to that point, I may only make a pro forma objection, but I'll always make the objection. Example: my guy was looking at LWOP for 11 grams of crack. I had three strong bases for why the evidence should have been suppressed. Each one got overruled, and I figured there was no way the fourth reason, which I knew was a loser, was going to succeed, so I might as well sit down and shut up. I said it anyway to make my record, and won the motion to suppress. No more LWOP, but client still had a straight possession charge. His assessment? "Man, how come you ain't working for me!?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 05:08
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Sorry, I didn't think that was what you were asking. The statistic I was most curious about was how often defence counsel makes a motion to suppress physical evidence found pursuant to an arrest, but I'm hardly going to complain if you have detailed statistics that even include how many hearsay objections they make. I would like to know the frequency of various motions and arguments; what's the frequency of appellate briefs crying "reasonable doubt," etc. I doubt the statistic exists, but it can't hurt to ask. I get the rest of what you're saying, but it's besides the point. That the motions are made whenever defence counsel reckons the issue exists is one thing, the statistic itself another. I'm curious in the statistical frequency of defence counsel motions and various arguments; I haven't seen any statistics on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 05:46
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:The statistic I was most curious about was how often defence counsel makes a motion to suppress physical evidence found pursuant to an arrest, but I'm hardly going to complain if you have detailed statistics that even include how many hearsay objections they make. I would like to know the frequency of various motions and arguments; what's the frequency of appellate briefs crying "reasonable doubt," etc. I doubt the statistic exists, but it can't hurt to ask.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 09:59
|
|
|
Lykourgos posted:I'm hardly going to complain if you have detailed statistics Lykourgos posted:The statistic I was most curious about was how often defence counsel makes a motion to suppress physical evidence found pursuant to an arrest As to other stuff, it's all over the board. Where the law is pretty well settled e.g. if a defendant testifies, if he's been convicted of a felony that fact will come in, there's not a lot of litigation. Where the law is less settled or up to a 'totality of the circumstances' the chances of winning have almost as much to do with what the judge had for breakfast as the facts of the case,so those will get litigated. This is why search warrants get litigated 90% of the time. Part of this is that the Court's acceptance of any old crap as a reason has made the police lazy; when the Court requires only a barely constitutional minimum, the police will give a barely constitutional minimum. When issues are more fact intensive, the defense litigates less because the police get to pick the facts; judges simply do not believe defendants. Where the State is asking the court to make an exception to the rules just this once, (e.g. 403/404b, hearsay, confrontation, warrantless searches, etc.) of course those get litigated. According to the rules, that evidence is not supposed to get in. Perhaps a more interesting statistic would be how often does the State ask a court to permit the State to not follow the law. (3-20* times per case) *comedy option: Where the State asked to blanket admit 500 pages of stuff that happened in a particular family as long as 10 years ago. (and not a sex case, so 413/414 didn't apply) Also clouding the search for suppression statistics is that a lot of these issues get worked out before they get litigated, in the plea bargain process. Often the defense counsel and DA will split the risk of either side losing a motion in exchange for a better offer. Lykourgos posted:what's the frequency of appellate briefs crying "reasonable doubt," "[i posted:Jackson v. Virginia[/i] 443 US 307 (1979)"] That said, I'll raise reasonable doubt 15-20% of the time on appeal, but the issue is not "the jury f'ed up," but "the jury were not properly instructed as to the law to use in deciding the case; if they had been properly instructed, even looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, no reasonable juror would have voted guilty." "The jury f'ed up" cases are well less than 5%. So unless you're dealing with a legislative or state constitutional basis for requiring a reasonable doubt analysis on appeal, (or pro se claims), you're not going to see appellate briefs crying "reasonable doubt." (pro se folks generally don't understand the "trial is where you litigate facts, appeals are where you litigate law" bit either) tl;dr: You try to bring in stupid stuff you're not supposed to, the defense will oppose it; you try to bring in stuff that hurts the defendant, and there's a good faith basis to oppose it, the defense will oppose it. \/\/\/\/ Scientific Wild-Assed Guess joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Sep 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I don't have statistics on any of that. I can make some SWAGs based on what I've seen. I don't know what a SWAG is, but if the statistics haven't been compiled, then I have my answer. quote:You've mentioned this before. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Generally, reasonable doubt is not part of an appeal; reasonable doubt is a jury call based on the facts. Appeals are for legal errors made by court and counsel in preparing a jury for deliberations, not for errors the jury made in determining facts during deliberation. A jurisdiction may legislate a reasonable doubt review on appeal (the military's intermediate appellate courts have thus duty) but that's rare; the constitution doesn't require it, so it doesn't get done. The constitutional requirement for 'reasonable doubt' on appeal is this: Yes, thank you, I know that the appeal is generally going to lose if it is resting on reasonable doubt. That's why it constantly induces a state of eye-rolling when huge numbers of appellate briefs decide to raise that very point. Your briefs may well be a pleasure to read, but your "the jury f'ed up" (or trial judge; it's usually bench here) is actually what I'd say the bulk of briefs try to argue at some point. Hence it would be nice to have a hard statistic, not guess work, but if it's not out there then it's not out there (and it'd be highly regional anyway, so I guess it would be a tremendous amount of work to compile it all in detail).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Here's the prison envelope art I've posted before:       Prison comics:         Lots more inmate-drawn comics here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:The Phoenix Wright series makes a complete mockery of evidence laws. They're still fun to play, though. The Phoenix Wright series makes a complete mockery of all laws. Wright: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, err, Judge, since every case I've been in has been a bench trial for some reason, as you have just seen, I have proven my client could not have been at the scene, that the prosecutors witnesses have all perjured themselves, and thus my client cannot be guilty." Edgeworth: "But who did do it? If you can't get a witness to tearfully confess on the stand, Matlock style, you have no case." Wright: "Isn't that detective gumshoes job?! Am I the only one who went to law school?" With, bench trials, no presumption of innocence, LA being a 20 minute drive from a traditional Japanese village within view of Mt. Fuji, and dominatrix proceutors who can literally hit witnesses and the defense council with whips, I would say that anyone who has ever played an Ace Attorney game should be as qualified to talk about law as a Warhammer 40k fan should be to talk about military tactics, handing soldiers swords and having Barrack Obama lead the charge, since he's an leader unit, he must be more badass than everyone. I would have believed them if they had just said that the game takes place in Japan. Since apparently in Japan, they have no jury trials, prosecutors use police as their own personal army, and you can be put to death after a 3 day trial if the judge gets irritated by your defense attorney on any one of those days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 15:21
|
|
|
Well, Phoenix Wright is originally a Japanese game...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
Ganguro King posted:Well, Phoenix Wright is originally a Japanese game... I know, thats my point. They could have just said the whole thing takes place in Japan and I would have believed them. Why even bother claiming it takes place in the US and try to say that Maya is wearing "hippie clothes" instead of a kimono.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
Fire posted:I know, thats my point. They could have just said the whole thing takes place in Japan and I would have believed them. Why even bother claiming it takes place in the US and try to say that Maya is wearing "hippie clothes" instead of a kimono. A philosopher's stone!? no kid will want to read a PHILOSOPHY book, feh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 16:58
|
|
|
E: never mind Edit 2, for content: here's my take on the prison shows such as Lockup Ayn Randi posted:i caught the end of some prison porn show like americas authoritarianist prisons the other night and every single guard/prison employee, male and female, absolutely without exception was massively obese. im not sure what the meaning and implications are here but it was too consistent to not notice. 1) Corrections is an inherently sedentary field (with infrequent, short-duration periods of activity, and then only for certain jobs); and- more so than police which is saying something- there's a sharp divide within the correctional community between weightlifters and non-weightlifters. This is further subdivided between juice vs no juice and bodybuilding vs powerlifting. 1a) Weightlifting (specifically bodybuilding, but also powerlifting) is a large and historic part of prison culture; and as the inmates go, so go the guards. (The osmosis works the other way too, which is why introducing harsher tactics or meaner guards increases rather than reduces inmate-on-inmate violence). 2) The types of personalities common in bodybuilder jailors are not the types of personalities a prison warden is going to want shown to the general public. 3) The types in 2) are typically not the type to want to go on camera for a prisonporn show. 4) Prisonporn shows are edited together from hundreds or thousands of hours worth of footage by experts looking to maximize appeal to the target audience (older white folks). CHeck out the commercials that play during prisonporn. Boner pills, investment companies, heart/cholestrol pills, large sedans/SUVs, Olive Garden. That's who these shows are made for, they're not documentaries. They're going to show an "everyman" who looks like a couch potato instead of someone who looks like a Universal Soldier. Remember, the media message is designed to downplay the militarization of the individual officers and the culture in general. Portray them as aw-shucks good ol' folks who don't take no lip, but with a heart of gold (and sclerosis). That's why you see the focus on the technology of the weapons and the prison itself- the guards must be humanized. They're the "good guys" after all; just regular folk trying to get by, their (fetishized) technology are necessary tools to do battle with the intentionally dehumanized (by the show) inmates. Who by the way are frequently shown shirtless and tattoo'd, and working out all the time. Especially the quick shots of the yard, or the little montages bookending commercial breaks. And if they can get some non-consenting inmates with their faces blurred out, so much the better- I wouldn't be surprised if this is intentional. Inmate interviews always follow the same canned (& heavily-edited) script, with plenty of focus on the offense; guard interviews are a little more free-form, lots of "walking around my office" shots or "friendly banter with passing inmates" shots. In contrast to the quick impersonal group shots of inmates, again almost always working out, or edited to seem as if they're "glancing furtively" as dumb music plays over it. Whenever inmates are shown doing something productive, like when they show guys getting to use a music room or something, it's used as an exception to countershade the overall impressions left by the group shots, even if they spend a lot of time on it. 5) What forgotabout dreyfus said. 6) Don't watch prisonporn, or if you do, watch it critically because it's a very carefully created (and successful) attempt to shape public opinion on prison conditions and correctional policy. Every minute of those shows was pre-approved by the department of corrections, and then checked and re-checked by corrections officials, in addition to being heavily edited and editorialized. Rather than documentary in nature, it's quite literally state-managed media with the express purpose of influencing the voting public. HidingFromGoro fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Sep 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
 Article and slide show of IL women's "impact incarceration" program, one of those boot camp deals offered to some offenders as an alternative to prison. Basically you get the choice between 3 to 7 years in prison or 6 weeks of boot camp but it's correspondingly more difficult. Note that similar boot camps (not affiliated with the linked one) are also used for juveniles where they face extreme and sometimes fatal abuse, especially in the for-profit ones. Related to boot camps are the highly profitable and abusive "troubled teen" programs, also known as residential treatment centers in addition to other names. Several SA posters have done time in these facilities, and at least one has had a loved one killed there. There's a movie about this called "Over the GW." Perhaps even more disturbingly, there is a movement to implement the kind of isolation and physical restraint used in these programs within schools- a practice which has provably resulted in the deaths of children as young as age 7. And over 150 Congressmen voted against a law banning these practices, and no I'm not making that up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:36 |
|
|
quote:the recidivism rate for three years with no new felony convictions is 23.3%, compared to 32.9% at a traditional correctional facility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 02:03
|
|