|
Remember this article? Take the time to read it if you don't, it's absolutely infuriating. A teen spent three years at Riker's Island without trial, two of them in solitary confinement, for allegedly stealing a backpack. Prosecutors tried to pressure him into taking a plea deal and get time served. He refused and insisted on going to trial, and they dropped the charges because the whole thing was bullshit. I bring it up because there is news: quote:A video published by The New Yorker on Thursday shows some of the horrific violence Browder faced during his stay on Rikers, at the hands of both guards and inmates. The video
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
Is that dude going to at least get a payday out of the whole ordeal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Remember this article? Take the time to read it if you don't, it's absolutely infuriating. A teen spent three years at Riker's Island without trial, two of them in solitary confinement, for allegedly stealing a backpack. Prosecutors tried to pressure him into taking a plea deal and get time served. He refused and insisted on going to trial, and they dropped the charges because the whole thing was bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Although after reading about the pushing for baseless guilty plea, I wonder what percentage of cases require prosecutors to do any actual work. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1512845 http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/138/ quote:The power and prestige of the American prosecutor have changed dramatically over the past twenty years. Three generalizations appropriately describe this change. First, prosecutors wield vastly more power than ever before. Second, prosecutors are more insulated from judicial control over their conduct. Third, prosecutors are increasingly immune to ethical restraints. Only the last point may provoke some controversy; the first two are easily documented, and generally accepted by the courts and commentators.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I prefer not to engage with someone who calls me unethical. Good day, sir. I guess that's your answer. You could have said that you are actually not in favor of our current laws, but it sounds like you've come down on the side of indifference. And yes, that's unethical when we're talking about America's drug laws.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Maybe you should learn the definition of unethical. Or explain to me how using one's discretion to defer to court social services and give someone charged with a minor offense with rehabilitative potential a statutory authorized diversionary program rather than treating every case as an opportunity to improve your win record is "unethical"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Unless something has shifted, nothing like the number people think. They enjoy being a class of criminals unto themselves the way cops are. The problem with using law review articles for anything other than research shortcuts to find actual usable sources is there is no peer review. Also dafuq is pace university?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also dafuq is pace university? Like nearly 100% of .edu websites, the link he posted has a big button in the corner that says the name of the institution which, if you click on it, takes you to their homepage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Like nearly 100% of .edu websites, the link he posted has a big button in the corner that says the name of the institution which, if you click on it, takes you to their homepage. They're a borderline 4th tier law school so it doesn't count!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:They're a borderline 4th tier law school so it doesn't count! Right, he could also have googled them http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/10/third-tier-rathole-pace-university-law.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Maybe you should learn the definition of unethical. Oh you're engaging now? But I called you unethical. I don't care how lenient you are. Do you support the laws or not? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Right, he could also have googled them That redirects to a porn site at the moment so be careful clicking that link. Yay wordpress exploits!
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Right, he could also have googled them I know. Hobbesmaster got my point. Pace university is not exactly an academic powerhouse. Also "she"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
I'm not looking forward to the "Coyote Dies of Excited Delirium" headlines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I know. Hobbesmaster got my point. Pace university is not exactly an academic powerhouse. Yeah hand wave away research by an individual whose focus in life is apparently ethics in the courtroom
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
e:nm
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:who's probably never stepped foot in a courtroom quote:Bennett L. Gershman is the James Hopkins Professor of Law at Pace University. He has been a visiting professor at Cornell Law School and Syracuse Law School. Before joining the Pace Law School faculty, Professor Gershman was in private practice specializing in criminal defense litigation. He is a former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney and the author of numerous articles as well as two books on prosecutorial and judicial ethics: Prosecutorial Misconduct and Trial Error and Misconduct. Professor Gershman served for four years with the Special State Prosecutor investigating corruption in the judicial system. Jesus what a hack, I bet he couldn't even find his way to the courthouse. Edit: Oh I guess you realized that? Leaving this for posterity, seeing as people seem happy to dismiss the article without addressing it because Pace is a mediocre school.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Well I dunno, let's take 30 seconds to check! there's plenty of reasons to discount legal scholarship and that's usually one among them (professor track is usually law school -> couple years as a federal clerk -> professor) but yeah, in this case, I jumped to conclusions
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
I agree with his conclusions, but I'm still skeptical because legal journals are really just mutual masturbation for law profs. The fact that it is shocking this guy has been in a courtroom shows you why. Generally law schools won't hire profs with more than 3 years real world experence because they think they are tainted. (Unless you sold a bunch or books or will bring money.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
You are confusing legal scholarship with other social science scholarship which requires peer review. There is no requirement for peer review in law review publication. Do you think his (minimal) experience as a prosecutor absolves him from the need for peer review? Because I can find you a host of equally or more experienced trial attorneys who will come to a different conclusion. Law review articles are basically glorified op ed pieces regardless of the conclusion. And yeah. Pace is poo poo. Also for the record, it is his third point I take issue with, as the definition of "prosecutorial misconduct" includes things like "accidentally said the word victim once in closing" ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
I'm a little wary of shaken baby syndrome as a crime; I think prosecuting it requires a holistic approach. Apparently there have been a number of people who were found to have been sent to prison needlessly because instead of shaken baby syndrome their baby actually had a different variety of injury (one symptom of SBS is brain swelling and vomiting which can actually be caused by vitamin D deficiency. Some injuries like blood pooling in eyes apparently can be a delayed symptom of an injury sustained during birth.) but juries see red when child abuse is involved. Surprise surprise some of the people recently freed were poor and brown when convicted. As a woman freaks me out because it's just one more way to criminalize being a poor woman. Poor and miscarry? Go to jail. Poor and baby manifests injuries from rough birth? Go to jail. Poor and leave your kid with a game boy in a ventilated car? Go to jail. Of course abuse actually happens but that's why these cases need extra care. Many people who went to jail on SBS were caring for kids who had no neck or spine damage. (And lest you think I hate kids, while I was working at an elementary school I filled out a few CPS reports. I loathe child abusers.) It seems in a lot of these cases the physician has a lot of power. While I worked at a school, I was a mandatory reporter - in other words, if I saw a kid who I thought was being abused, I would be committing a crime by not reporting it. I'm assuming physicians have a similar obligation. My obligation never bothered me because I never saw a kid where I wasn't sure, but I imagine it's more difficult for a doctor or other medical professional because they are always seeing people in some state of unwellness. I wouldn't be surprised if in a hospital in a large city people of color would be reported by doctors to authorities on suspicion of abuse at a percentage higher than the percentage of patients they make up, probably not due to malice but due to doctors being unable to relate or empathize on an unconscious level (perhaps in a way similar to white LEOs who on some level find it harder to relate to black citizens.) is anyone more knowledgable about that? The intersection of medicine and law enforcement is pretty interesting. On the Swedish cops, I watched the video and it was interesting to contrast what the Swedes were saying "calm down, chill out, sir" with such statements as "gently caress your breath" (said to dying man) and "stop resisting!" (said while stomping someone's face in.) I'm sure a lot of American cops are cordial, maybe they can all wear body cams and leak videos of themselves being respectful yet firm with apprehended suspects.  And now a personal anecdote about cops. I lived in Madrid for five years. One of my friends was a weed dealer. He was walking down the street with a big bag with 50€ worth of weed (like a sandwich bag full) in his backpack. He was also smoking a joint openly while walking. A cop came up from behind him and told him to put out his joint. Then the cop asked him to open his backpack. My friend did (to this day we have never read up on Spain's search and seizure laws) and the cop saw the big bag of weed. The cop took it and sent my friend on his way. My friend only realized later that the cop never wrote him up or took his info. We think that the cop took that bag home with him and  All cops are bastards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Btw did you know gershman considers charging George Zimmerman with murder prosecutorial misconduct?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
From now on can we collectively ostracize anyone who isn't citing studies from Harvard, with peer reviewers from Yale and Oxford?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Lucca Blight posted:From now on can we collectively ostracize anyone who isn't citing studies from Harvard, with peer reviewers from Yale and Oxford? All of legal academia should basically be shunned. It isn't really true academia. Again, I agree with the article, but one from a socialogist or something would be way more useful. nm fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
I find it really ironic that you are willing to completely defer to this author's professional expertise, but you aren't willing to listen to the three attorneys in this thread, with dramatically different backgrounds and politics, wo all collectively agree that law review articles are crap. I say this as the former managing editor of one. Now, re prosecutorial misconduct, part of the problem with a dialogue on this topic is there really isn't a good working definition of "misconduct" I think we can all agree that hiding evidence is bad, and I think should be a felony. But a lot if "prosecutorial misconduct" cases are really more "errors" which is why our state no longer uses the term misconduct in favor if "impropriety". Sure, the error may warrant a new trial. But it doesn't mean the prosecutor should be "punished" per se. Here. I'm going to do an experiment. I am going to go into west law right now and pull my states most recent impropriety allegation and my state's most recent substantiated allegation. Brb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-3hTWLHUOUquote:PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. - Exclusively-obtained dash-cam video shows Dontrell Stephens, 20, talking on a cellphone while riding his bike on a Friday morning in September 2013. He can be seen turning onto Norma Elaine Road near Haverhill Road and Okeechobee Boulevard as PBSO deputy Adams Lin trails him. quote:That day, Sheriff Ric Bradshaw went on TV to defend the shooting. x
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
You actually have prosecutors dicplined for misconduct? poo poo that doesn't happen in CA even with verified proof of falsified evidence by a da and perjury. Prosecutors are essentially free from consequences in CA. I had a brady violation found against a DA by pro-prosecution judge (probably the first time he'd ever found one) and nothing happened. I don't think the judge even mentioned it to the bar. This coulf be the reason why we've had 2 persons exonerated for murder convictions in the last 6 months. nm fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I find it really ironic that you are willing to completely defer to this author's professional expertise, but you aren't willing to listen to the three attorneys in this thread, with dramatically different backgrounds and politics, wo all collectively agree that law review articles are crap. I say this as the former managing editor of one. The people who are "willing to completely defer" probably read the article and agreed with it. nm has actually engaged and mentioned that he agrees with the article, while literally all you've done in regards to the article is say "All of those things are stupid as gently caress by default, I'm a lot better and smarter. You should listen to me instead." In what way is it "ironic" that people are more willing to engage with content rather than appeals to your own authority?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Ok. April 2015. Case #1: six allegations of prosecutorial misconduct all relating to parts of closing argument. All found by appellate court to be not improper arguments. Case 2: October 2014: prosecutor praises cops and calls case a slam dunk. Improper argument. Reversed. So really, again, I think we can all agree hiding the ball is bad and should be punished, but that's not what we're usually talking about. Usually it's "lovely argument"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
nm posted:You actually have prosecutors dicplined for misconduct? poo poo that doesn't happen in CA even with verified proof of falsified evidence by a da and perjury. The more you tell me about California the more I am glad I don't practice there. That poo poo infuriates me. And Lemming, I never said I was smarter. I said generally speaking law review articles, regardless of which side they support are not the same as other academic publucations because there are virtually no publication standards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Are there any reasonable suggestions for how to keep police officers from wanting to help each other cover up mistakes so frequently? I know there's no real comparison, but when someone fucks up in the corporate world their coworkers aren't jumping at the chance to help them cover it up. I don't remember reading anything in these threads addressing it, but I could have just missed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Are there any reasonable suggestions for how to keep police officers from wanting to help each other cover up mistakes so frequently? I know there's no real comparison, but when someone fucks up in the corporate world their coworkers aren't jumping at the chance to help them cover it up. I don't remember reading anything in these threads addressing it, but I could have just missed it. Ideally I'd say punish them as an accomplice to the original offender, but then you'd also have to punish the guy who shoots the unarmed black man in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Lemming: do you think it was prosecutorial misconduct to charge George Zimmerman with murder?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lemming: do you think it was prosecutorial misconduct to charge George Zimmerman with murder? I don't have enough levels in Lawyering so in that respect I recognize my opinion is worthless, but as a citizen I think George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin so I think it was probably correct to charge him with murder. That said, I think what you're getting at is that guy from the article apparently thinks it was and you want me to disagree with everything he says by proxy, but my point wasn't about the validity of the article, which I haven't commented on, just that the way you dismissed it was "those things are dumb, who cares what it says."
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
So what makes one of his opinions on prosecutorial misconduct gospel and another invalid? He's an expert who's dedicated his life to studying this, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The people who are "willing to completely defer" probably read the article and agreed with it. nm has actually engaged and mentioned that he agrees with the article, while literally all you've done in regards to the article is say "All of those things are stupid as gently caress by default, I'm a lot better and smarter. You should listen to me instead." Oh hey, like this: Lemming posted:I don't have enough levels in Lawyering so in that respect I recognize my opinion is worthless, but as a citizen I think George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin so I think it was probably correct to charge him with murder. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So what makes one of his opinions on prosecutorial misconduct gospel and another invalid? He's an expert who's dedicated his life to studying this, right? A layperson did a google search and found something from a law school and they linked it. What else can you expect a layperson to do in a discussion like this? Either they can say things they don't know anything about (which makes you upset) or they can try to do what research they can (which also seems to be making you mad). The only alternative is to shut the gently caress up and never talk about it and let you say whatever you want because only lawyers can talk about anything wrong with the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lemming: do you think it was prosecutorial misconduct to charge George Zimmerman with murder? ActusRhesus: do you think this country's drug laws are ethical? Don't try to split hairs, you know what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:ActusRhesus: do you think this country's drug laws are ethical? Don't try to split hairs, you know what I'm talking about. No. Actually I don't know what you are talking about. You habitually ask overly broad questions with vague and poorly defined terms so that you can play gotcha. Make your question more specific. Which laws? Ethical in what sense? You may as well be asking how do you feel about the history of Europe? As for lemming, anyone can have an opinion on the justice system. But a conclusory post just citing someone else's article isn't much of a discussion, is it? And I'm not the only one who (correctly) pointed out the problems with treating law review articles like other scholarly works. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:ActusRhesus: do you think this country's drug laws are ethical? Don't try to split hairs, you know what I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 19:14
|
|