Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Our PD office is independently funded with an oversight commission.

If the commission feels it's reasonably necessary to the defense they get it.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 00:14

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

archangelwar posted:

Expert witnesses are expensive and a privilege of the wealthy, and the implicit subtext here is that there is a minimum bar to cross for defense that must be played out over and over and has variable sticking power.

There's also the concern that my question was regarding encouragement/discouragement and not whether or not trial processes were sufficient. If criminal procedures were, then we wouldn't be seeing wrongful convictions. However, since we are seeing them, what can encourage better deliberation prior to, say, indictment? In a perfect world, my thinking is that the governing entity seeking a conviction ought to be responsible for compensation of lost years in the event of a wrongful conviction, but replaced by civil award upon finding of misconduct - either this compensation or that, so the state has a financial stake in identifying misconduct so they can recoup their payments from the prosecutor/prosecution.

Assuming, of course, the faith in the process is just as strong when the shoe is on the other foot.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 20:51

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

A number of states do have compensation funds for wrongful convictions.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 20:53

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

PD offices have expert budgets.

ActusRhesus posted:

Our PD office is independently funded with an oversight commission.

If the commission feels it's reasonably necessary to the defense they get it.

Your state is by far the exception not the rule. Because elsewhere, those offices have had their budgets wrecked:

quote:

Faced with steep cuts to their budgets, federal public defenders around the country have furloughed or laid off hundreds of lawyers and other staff members, spent less on expert witnesses and cut back on case-related travel.

The cuts for the 2014 fiscal year will most likely result in staff reductions of 30 percent to 50 percent, they said. And some public defenders are even considering closing their offices because of a lack of money.
...
Mr. Nachmanoff said he had to turn down cases this year for the first time since 2001. One was a death penalty case, three others involved international fraud and another was an arms export control violation.

While federal defenders have had to cut back on the number of cases they handle, the Justice Department is increasing the number of cases it brings to court and also hiring staff.

Its annual budget is nearly $28 billion, compared with $1 billion for the federal public defenders program. Since both Republicans and Democrats were reluctant to hurt federal law enforcement, Congress granted the attorney general broad authority to shift money from other programs to pay for salaries and avoid furloughs.
...
With the cuts to the public defenders program, courts have to rely more on private court-appointed lawyers to represent indigent clients. These lawyers are paid from the same budget as the public defenders.

But they cost more since they are paid by the hour, and they tend to be less experienced and less effective, according to studies. Federal defenders are salaried employees.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing in July on the impact of cuts to the federal public defenders program, a group of 40 former judges and prosecutors urged Congress to fully finance it.

�These ill-conceived measures undermine not only the Federal Defender system, but the entire federal judiciary, without achieving any real cost savings,� they wrote of the sequestration cuts and the shift to private lawyers.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html)

quote:

Minnesota�s constitutionally mandated and historically malnourished public defender system has too few attorneys to reasonably handle the nearly 150,000 cases it takes on each year. It�s not uncommon for a public defender to spend fewer than 15 minutes meeting with a client for the first time, evaluating the case, explaining to the client the consequences of a conviction versus a plea, talking with the prosecutor, and eliciting a decision on how to proceed. National standards recommend four hours for the same amount of work.

Surviving as a public defender in Minnesota seems to come down to the ability to triage, to calculate where to put the most effort when there isn�t time to do everything. Defenders tend to work grueling hours, yet still don�t always have time to thoroughly research and review evidence�despite mounting questions surrounding the reliability of fingerprint analysis and eyewitness accounts�or adequately prepare clients and witnesses for the stand. Sometimes there isn�t enough money to hire expert witnesses in the first place.

(http://mnbenchbar.com/2015/04/in-defense-of-public-defenders/)

quote:

The defense receives less funding than the prosecution in many jurisdictions, leading to significant inequalities in resources and services to defend people who stand accused.49 The importance of parity in funding, salary, resources and workload has been articulated in national standards,50 by the Department of Justice,51 the Supreme Court52 and other experts.53 However, funding for public defense often fails to keep pace with that provided for prosecution.54 This disparity can be difficult to quantify, but one study in Tennessee examined funding from many different agencies that contributed to prosecution and defense, finding that the prosecution spent between $130 and $139 million on public defense cases during FY2005, while the defense spent less than half of that �$56.4 million.55
...
Lack of funding is a significant barrier to providing quality public defense.28 While funding has increased since Gideon,29 it remains insufficient.30 This is contributing to high caseloads, which in turn, constrains the amount of a time a defender can spend with each client, and generally hinders the quality of representation people receive.31 Limited funds can lead to understaffing32 and a lack of access to investigators, experts, support staff, interpreters, forensic services, technology, office equipment and legal research.33

http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/system_overload_final.pdf

quote:

Quality legal representation cannot be rendered unless indigent defense systems are adequately funded.38 Attorneys who do not receive sufficient compensation have a disincentive to devote the necessary time and effort to provide meaningful representation or even participate in the system at all. With fewer attorneys available to accept cases, the lawyers who provide services often are saddled with excessive caseloads, further hampering their ability to represent their clients effectively. Additionally, the lack of funding leads to inadequate support services by decreasing the availability of resources for training, research, and basic technology, as well as the indispensable assistance of investigators, experts, and administrative staff.
...
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that �mere access to the courthouse doors does not by itself assure a proper functioning of the adversary process, and that a criminal trial is fundamentally unfair if the [prosecution] proceeds against an indigent defendant without making certain that he has access to the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense.�71 National standards also have long recognized that indigent defense counsel must be provided with necessary resources such as office equipment, technology, legal research, support staff, paralegals, investigators, forensic services, and experts.72 However, witnesses testified that attorneys are denied access to these basic tools essential to mounting an adequate defense.73

For example, witnesses from Washington reported that public defenders historically have operated with grossly inadequate office equipment and technology as well as insufficient support staff and expert witness funding.74 A witness from Pennsylvania testified about a widespread lack of investigative and expert services throughout that state: �We heard examples in a number of Pennsylvania counties where they claimed to have an investigator or two on the staff of the local public defender�s office, but when we inquired further about what their duties were, we were told that they were screening clients for indigency eligibility. They had no real investigatory function. The lack of resources also prevents defense counsel from hiring experts. For example, in one county, an attorney could recall only one case in which he had an expert witness. A lawyer in another county told us that, as a pharmacist�s son, he felt competent to testify and manage the pathology evidence in a case.�75

A contract defender in a Montana county described her situation as follows: �The contract has been considered to be part-time since its inception and, coupled with no allocation for office expenses, has significantly impacted the amount of time and office resources that I have been able to devote to my criminal clients. It�s rare that I�m able to accept collect calls from the jail, since I�m not reimbursed for the calls.�76
(http://www.americanbar.org/content/...uthcheckdam.pdf)

# ? Aug 18, 2015 20:55

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

I suppose our state is the model then. We also have a long roster of private counsel who get contract assignments when PD office is either overloaded or conflicted. Maybe rather than jumping all over me for being a tool of the oppressors , you could ask how other states can emulate us.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:08

archangelwar: Oct 28, 2004; Teaching Moments

FAUXTON posted:

There's also the concern that my question was regarding encouragement/discouragement and not whether or not trial processes were sufficient. If criminal procedures were, then we wouldn't be seeing wrongful convictions. However, since we are seeing them, what can encourage better deliberation prior to, say, indictment? In a perfect world, my thinking is that the governing entity seeking a conviction ought to be responsible for compensation of lost years in the event of a wrongful conviction, but replaced by civil award upon finding of misconduct - either this compensation or that, so the state has a financial stake in identifying misconduct so they can recoup their payments from the prosecutor/prosecution.

Assuming, of course, the faith in the process is just as strong when the shoe is on the other foot.

Oh absolutely, that is why in a previous post I suggested that this understanding of human cognitive processing has to be incorporated even at the time of law enforcement (ie police and community/witness/victim/suspect interaction) and all the way down the chain. Hell, it needs to exist at the time law is conceived. We understand psychology/sociology and the impact of cognitive biases so much better now than we did when our justice system was conceived. At the very least, the agents of the system should be curious and less eager to embrace the systemic flaws.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:12

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

I suppose our state is the model then. We also have a long roster of private counsel who get contract assignments when PD office is either overloaded or conflicted. Maybe rather than jumping all over me for being a tool of the oppressors , you could ask how other states can emulate us.

As noted in the pieces I quoted, actually having a long roster of private counselors can make the situation worse because they're often funded from the exact same budget but cost more per hour.

Like this contract PD:

quote:

A contract defender in a Montana county described her situation as follows: �The contract has been considered to be part-time since its inception and, coupled with no allocation for office expenses, has significantly impacted the amount of time and office resources that I have been able to devote to my criminal clients. It�s rare that I�m able to accept collect calls from the jail, since I�m not reimbursed for the calls.�76

I'd hate to get a PD that refused to answer my calls from jail.

It seems rude to ask about something someone so clearly doesn't want to talk about, its kinda hard to discuss how other states can emulate yours without identifying the state we're supposed to be emulating.

(Also, its unrelated accusations like "jumping all over me for being a tool of the oppressors" that make your tone seem hostile. If you're intending that comment towards someone else, probably use the quote tool.)

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:12

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

ActusRhesus posted:

I suppose our state is the model then. We also have a long roster of private counsel who get contract assignments when PD office is either overloaded or conflicted. Maybe rather than jumping all over me for being a tool of the oppressors , you could ask how other states can emulate us.

I dunno. They're a fairly notable PD who blogs from your atate whose complained about the same thing.
You mostly do very serious felonies. Those get very well funded from PDs offices. Death penalty, murders, sex case, and life cases tend tobget rubber stamped. Everything else: just cross the witness better! Misdeamnors and light felonies get hosed. I had a battered woman syndrome DV case (client was the woman and the "victim" reminded me of every rear end in a top hat male DV client I've had) which involved cultural issues and more. Never could get funding for a really good expert who would properly evaluate the case. That poo poo is expensive and no supervisor (or judge) is going to greenlight a five figure expert on a low level felony.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:21

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Check your pm box for context on bloggers.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:26

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

ActusRhesus posted:

Check your pm box for context on bloggers.

No who you're thinking of. This is actually a PD, not a hack.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:35

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

nm posted:

No who you're thinking of. This is actually a PD, not a hack.

No. The second guess is a PD. And a huge rear end.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:41

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

ActusRhesus posted:

And again, those studies a. Boil down to "sometimes people make mistakes" duh. And b. don't apply where the defendant is known to the witness before hand. Big difference between "I saw random black guy for a few seconds" and "I saw Bob"

I don't think 24-33% is "sometimes". It's a shockingly high number considering the credence that juries give testimony. The New Jersey review also talks about how outside reinforcement shapes memory and how "I saw someone who might have been Bob" can turn into "Oh yeah I definitely saw Bob" if the person hears Bob's a suspect or hears on the street that Bob did it.

The scope of the problem is tough to pin down though, as I don't see anyone really studying it deeply. This paper that argues that the problem's not that bad because it's only 3% of felony trials just cites another survey of prosecutors.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:44

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

All of which can be explored on cross-examination.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:46

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

ActusRhesus posted:

All of which can be explored on cross-examination.

The problem with cross alone is that the victims who mis-ID people really believe that the dude sitting there did it. There's no lies to uncover.
Yes, you can cross them on lighting and the brievity of the interaction and the like, but that doesn't really do it for many juries. The average person "knows" that if they were the victim of a crime they'd easly be able to pick the guy out of a line up because who forgets something as clear as that.
It is so subtle, it needs an expert. Of course there are a lot of poo poo experts and most defense experts are hurt by "well he's being paid to say that" (even if he testified for that state last week).

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:57

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Our PDs have been pretty effective crossing witnesses. We get a fair amount of acquittals and hung juries.

As for hired guns, it hasn't really hurt them here unless they come across as a paid whore.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 21:59

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

archangelwar posted:

Oh absolutely, that is why in a previous post I suggested that this understanding of human cognitive processing has to be incorporated even at the time of law enforcement (ie police and community/witness/victim/suspect interaction) and all the way down the chain. Hell, it needs to exist at the time law is conceived. We understand psychology/sociology and the impact of cognitive biases so much better now than we did when our justice system was conceived. At the very least, the agents of the system should be curious and less eager to embrace the systemic flaws.

Honestly, it seems like a lot of the weight assigned to eyewitnesses comes from tradition, which makes their position very hard to alter. That doesn't make it right, just depressing when you put it in the "but we follow all of these rules and check all of these boxes so it has to mean something" context.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:05

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

ActusRhesus posted:

All of which can be explored on cross-examination.

I'm tired of digging through studies, but I've seen ones that say that mock jurors are worse than random chance at determining true testimony because they rely on poor predictors of accuracy like if someone doesn't seem confident on the stand or they look "shifty" in some vague way.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:06

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

ActusRhesus posted:

Our PDs have been pretty effective crossing witnesses. We get a fair amount of acquittals and hung juries.

As for hired guns, it hasn't really hurt them here unless they come across as a paid whore.

Maybe different jury pools. My most recent one was white middle class suburbanites who thought my job was to trick them.
The states expert (who I prefer to use if I can, because no hired gun issue) admitted my issue was real, talked about it for 30 minutes, cited studies, etc. They hung 6-6 with the guilty jurors talking about how ) " didn't fool them!" On a case with at least a 50% innocence likelihood. I hate jurors.

PostNouveau posted:

I'm tired of digging through studies, but I've seen ones that say that mock jurors are worse than random chance at determining true testimony because they rely on poor predictors of accuracy like if someone doesn't seem confident on the stand or they look "shifty" in some vague way.

I'd believe it. The victims who are pretty sure that is the dude (because he is) are going to come off worse than the ones who didn't get a good look, but picked the guy out of the showup and placed that face on the formless shape they saw because they KNOW it is him.

nm fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Aug 18, 2015

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:06

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

nm posted:

Maybe different jury pools. My most recent one was white middle class suburbanites who thought my job was to trick them.
The states expert (who I prefer to use if I can, because no hired gun issue) admitted my issue was real, talked about it for 30 minutes, cited studies, etc. They hung 6-6 with the guilty jurors talking about how ) " didn't fool them!" On a case with at least a 50% innocence likelihood. I hate jurors.

I'd believe it. The victims who are pretty sure that is the dude (because he is) are going to come off worse than the ones who didn't get a good look, but picked the guy out of the showup and placed that face on the formless shape they saw because they KNOW it is him.

Yeah, most white suburbanites in our jurisdiction don't sit for "reasons" (reasons being affluenza)

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:12

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

nm posted:

I'd believe it. The victims who are pretty sure that is the dude (because he is) are going to come off worse than the ones who didn't get a good look, but picked the guy out of the showup and placed that face on the formless shape they saw because they KNOW it is him.

The mock juries in the study I cited earlier about how much credence juries give to eyewitness testimony went from 16% conviction rate without eyewitnesses, to 72% with eyewitnesses to 68% with a blind "eyewitness". They'd believe a blind person's identification of a suspect drat near as much as they'd believe a regular eyewitnesses'.

The believability of an eyewitness seems to come down to which side is coached better, which means which side has more time to devote to each case, and prosecutors' offices are better funded than defenders'. In California they've got counties where the defense budget is 18% of the prosecution budget. I'm sure you can chalk some of that up to the prosecutors having more of an investigative burden and some defenders not needing a PD, but it's a huge disparity.

We're pleading out 90-95% of criminal cases. People laugh at Japan's system because they get a 99.9% conviction rate, but we're getting real close to a system where if the police arrest you, you're going down for it because your PD can't mount a defense for you and his 50 other simultaneous clients.

But I'm sure since this is all done with the best intentions and "protections" the law can afford, it's totally cool. Justice is blind or whatever, go about your jobs that just happen to grind down minorities and the lower class.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:28

upgunned shitpost: Jan 21, 2015

PostNouveau posted:

Justice is blind or whatever, go about your jobs that just happen to grind down minorities and the lower class.

They just use bail to break poors. For those who make bail the conviction rate hovers around 20-30%. Those who can't, it's 90%+... most of whom plead out.

But remember, it's because the dude who can't come up with $100 is a 'flight risk' and they're not trying to browbeat him into a plea deal.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 22:40

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

jfood posted:

They just use bail to break poors. For those who make bail the conviction rate hovers around 20-30%. Those who can't, it's 90%+... most of whom plead out.

But remember, it's because the dude who can't come up with $100 is a 'flight risk' and they're not trying to browbeat him into a plea deal.

Nitpicking individual cases of police/prosecutorial misconduct is missing the huge racist forest for the possibly-not-racist trees.

# ? Aug 18, 2015 23:14

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

ActusRhesus posted:

I suppose our state is the model then. We also have a long roster of private counsel who get contract assignments when PD office is either overloaded or conflicted. Maybe rather than jumping all over me for being a tool of the oppressors , you could ask how other states can emulate us.

Your state still imprisons people at over triple the rate of every other industrialized country in the world though. There is no state in the US that has an even remotely acceptable number of people in prison. They're different from one another, sure, but there's a general trend to throw people in prison forever as the main social program and that's pretty oppressive.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 00:31

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Lyesh posted:

Your state still imprisons people at over triple the rate of every other industrialized country in the world though. There is no state in the US that has an even remotely acceptable number of people in prison. They're different from one another, sure, but there's a general trend to throw people in prison forever as the main social program and that's pretty oppressive.

Counter point: maine and minnesota. Minnesota is on par with new zealand and maine is lower.
Not that is a sign anything works.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 00:42

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

nm posted:

Counter point: maine and minnesota. Minnesota is on par with new zealand and maine is lower.
Not that is a sign anything works.

Maine is 350 per 100k and New Zealand is 183 per 100k. Wikipedia numbers, but if you have better please share.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 00:47

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Lyesh posted:

Maine is 350 per 100k and New Zealand is 183 per 100k. Wikipedia numbers, but if you have better please share.

The problem is determining what prison is. Maine's prison rate is 148 per the sentencing project, but that does not include pretrial. I don't know if NZs does.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 00:58

Lyesh: Apr 9, 2003

nm posted:

The problem is determining what prison is. Maine's prison rate is 148 per the sentencing project, but that does not include pretrial. I don't know if NZs does.

NZs does include pretrial detention, per this link

# ? Aug 19, 2015 01:14

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

The New Mexico cops who shot the homeless man that was camping illegally, James Boyd, are facing chargers now.

http://www.koat.com/news/closing-arguments-begin-in-james-boyd-case/34777938

# ? Aug 19, 2015 05:21

DARPA: Apr 24, 2005; We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.

quote:

“Whether you’re a police officer or a citizen, you don’t get to claim self-defense if you create the danger,” prosecutor Randi McGinn said in court Tuesday.

I hope this becomes actual legal precedent. Lot of officer shooting justified by "I ran up while yelling at a disturbed individual with a knife who didn't instantly respond. Shots were fired and the suspect died."

# ? Aug 19, 2015 05:35

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

DARPA posted:

I hope this becomes actual legal precedent. Lot of officer shooting justified by "I ran up while yelling at a disturbed individual with a knife who didn't instantly respond. Shots were fired and the suspect died."

It's pretty standard common law self defense doctrine. That said, police are entitled to more than self-defense since they are allowed to initiate confrontation to effect an arrest. I agree though, that police shouldn't be allowed to create the criteria for lethal force. The force continuum is not a checklist you have to go through before you get to shoot somebody. If the opinion in your quote did take hold it would be interesting to see what happens to tactics such as jumping in front of the car creating a lethal force situation because you might get run over.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 06:01

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

So if someone is killed or injured by police they and their family don't received any victim services until charges are brought, if any, correct?

That is, in these cases where it takes a few years to bring murder charges against cops, am I correct in assuming those victims and their families are left out in the cold in a way other victims and their families would not be?

# ? Aug 19, 2015 06:50

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Lyesh posted:

Your state still imprisons people at over triple the rate of every other industrialized country in the world though. There is no state in the US that has an even remotely acceptable number of people in prison. They're different from one another, sure, but there's a general trend to throw people in prison forever as the main social program and that's pretty oppressive.

We also have violent crime rates well above the national average in our three largest metropolitan areas. Many people in prison does not mean many people unfairly incarcerated.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 12:51

AreWeDrunkYet: Jul 8, 2006

ActusRhesus posted:

We also have violent crime rates well above the national average in our three largest metropolitan areas. Many people in prison does not mean many people unfairly incarcerated.

Except longer sentences aren't actually a meaningful deterrent to anything. Most research indicates that the money you spend incarcerating people for decades would do more to reduce crime by providing additional rehabilitative services with shorter sentences, not to mention a broader approach of reducing broader economic disparities to reduce the incentives to turn to crime in the first place.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 13:05

ozmunkeh: Feb 28, 2008; hey guys what is happening in this thread

Prosecutors have about as much incentive to want to reduce the crime rate as the for-profit prisons they send people to.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 13:41

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Except longer sentences aren't actually a meaningful deterrent to anything. Most research indicates that the money you spend incarcerating people for decades would do more to reduce crime by providing additional rehabilitative services with shorter sentences, not to mention a broader approach of reducing broader economic disparities to reduce the incentives to turn to crime in the first place.

For low level offenses perhaps. For a person with multiple homicides? There's specific deterrence. If they are in jail it's harder for them to kill anyone else.

But then, I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly endorsed accelerated rehab and diversionary programs for low level offenses.

I'm not going to weep over someone getting 25 to life for shooting a delivery guy over $43 and a medium with pepperoni.

Edit: remember, I'm coming from the perspective of dealing primarily with murder 1 and the occasional kid diddler.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 13:50

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

ozmunkeh posted:

Prosecutors have about as much incentive to want to reduce the crime rate as the for-profit prisons they send people to.

That is a really disgusting and baseless thing to say and it does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation. If you honestly think I can spend the bulk of my time looking at autopsy photos of 14 year olds, interviews of molested kids, and courtrooms filled with victim's families and think "woo hoo! Job security!" Then your level of faux internet crusader of justice outrage has really just reached the point of self-parody.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 13:56

ThePhenomenalBaby: May 3, 2011

Who was the first scumbag lawyer? Like historically. This concept had to come from somewhere.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 14:07

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

ThePhenomenalBaby posted:

Who was the first scumbag lawyer? Like historically. This concept had to come from somewhere.

While there are certainly some "scumbags" I think it comes more from the resentment built up due to the fact that usually if you need a lawyer the circumstances aren't pleasant.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 14:16

Adenoid Dan: Mar 8, 2012; The Hobo Serenader; Lipstick Apathy

ActusRhesus posted:

For low level offenses perhaps. For a person with multiple homicides? There's specific deterrence. If they are in jail it's harder for them to kill anyone else.

But then, I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly endorsed accelerated rehab and diversionary programs for low level offenses.

I'm not going to weep over someone getting 25 to life for shooting a delivery guy over $43 and a medium with pepperoni.

Edit: remember, I'm coming from the perspective of dealing primarily with murder 1 and the occasional kid diddler.

The thing that really matters is preventing more victims, and I'd rather leave that up to scientific study than gut feelings.

# ? Aug 19, 2015 14:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 00:14

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

ActusRhesus posted:

While there are certainly some "scumbags"

Look no further than the prosecutor's table.
Withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating false evidence from whole-cloth, intimidating and coercing witnesses, overcharging to force pleas, suborning perjury, vindictively opposing the release of the wrongfully convicted, an open disdain for the rights of the citizenry, pick from a list of fatal sins against the notion of justice.

LeJackal fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Aug 19, 2015

# ? Aug 19, 2015 14:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »