|
If the defendant is not being held there is no pressure on anyone to move the case along .
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
euphronius posted:If the defendant is not being held there is no pressure on anyone to move the case along . What about cases where the defendant is being held because they can't pay for a lawyer or bond? Why should they park for months to force them to plea instead of going to court?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Ok so there are a few things to take into account. For almost anyone with an attorney and that is out on bail, the right to speedy trial is typically waived as a part of the process. In these cases demanding a speedy trial wouldn't actually benefit the defendant and dragging it out is often beneficial. For the case where someone is behind bars awaiting trial, well, its a bit different. A lot of the people who can't afford bail straight up agree to bullshit plea agreements just simply because they can't afford to wait in jail any longer. The ones that do not aren't sitting in jail for 2-3 years awaiting trial and do have faster processing. They still typically get screwed though, regardless, and will until indigent people get the same legal access that the wealthy do (IE never).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Months is not a long time at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Months is not a long time at all. And what would happen to your financial situation if you were in jail for 3 months?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Months is not a long time at all. If more than a few percent of people in the US can afford to sit in jail for several months and not have it destroy their lives I'd be shocked. People who can't afford an attorney would likely get released to find themselves unemployed, homeless, and their stuff stolen/sold by their landlords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:And what would happen to your financial situation if you were in jail for 3 months? Who cares. Two or three months does not violate the constitutional requirement for a speedy trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If more than a few percent of people in the US can afford to sit in jail for several months and not have it destroy their lives I'd be shocked. People who can't afford an attorney would likely get released to find themselves unemployed, homeless, and their stuff stolen/sold by their landlords. euphronius posted:Who cares. If you're discounting the above you must have some alternate threshold in mind that qualifies as "a speedy trial." Please enlighten us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
There isn't one in the US generally. Federal trials have a short time period. States are longer. The sc has balancing test with four parts and specifically did not hold any specific time was per se unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There isn't one in the US generally. Federal trials have a short time period. States are longer. The sc has balancing test with four parts and specifically did not hold any specific time was per se unconstitutional. You're arguing about legal precedent and other people are arguing about real-world, practical concerns about what "speedy" ought to mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Zoran posted:You're arguing about legal precedent and other people are arguing about real-world, practical concerns about what "speedy" ought to mean. Correct. The sc will never say two or three months is the limit to try someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Correct. Sure—as someone said earlier in the thread, the court system will reject arguments that are obviously correct if accepting them means delegitimizing the legal system. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussing the problems or trying to rectify them by other means.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
euphronius posted:There isn't one in the US generally. Federal trials have a short time period. States are longer. The sc has balancing test with four parts and specifically did not hold any specific time was per se unconstitutional. So now that I've looked into it [Barker v. Wingo (1972) for those who don't know], I'm wondering what the legal reasoning is including the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial as a part of the test? Isn't that basically saying "if you don't know that you have this right or you don't specifically mention it then you really don't have this right"? Sorry if this is something you learn as a 1L but I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The sc will never say two or three months is the limit to try someone. What have they said the amendment requires? You mentioned four parts of something? Although I guess there's also concerns for enforceability of requiring the government to do something... isn't there a state dealing with a problem that their Supreme Court keeps finding that the state isn't meeting a constitutional education requirement or something, and the state just keeps outright ignoring them? I imagine the same thing would happen if the Supreme Court did in fact rule on more strict "speedy" limitations. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Sure—as someone said earlier in the thread, the court system will reject arguments that are obviously correct if accepting them means delegitimizing the legal system. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussing the problems or trying to rectify them by other means. Seems like a strange thread to brainstorm extra legal solutions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
frood posted:So now that I've looked into it [Barker v. Wingo (1972) for those who don't know], I'm wondering what the legal reasoning is including the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial as a part of the test? Isn't that basically saying "if you don't know that you have this right or you don't specifically mention it then you really don't have this right"? Sorry if this is something you learn as a 1L but I'm curious. If it's not asserted there is no "error" by the trial court to correct because it was never denied. Also if the defense lawyer doesn't bring it up there a question of incompetent representation which can also lead to a retrial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Months is not a long time at all. Down here we just had a guy in jail for 7 years waiting for a murder trial. He finally got 40 years just a few months after the local paper ran a story on how ridiculous holding a guy in jail for 7 years without a trial was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah in that article they say a normal murder case is 30 months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
The question of how fast a 'speedy trial' is actually has little bearing on the question of whether holding people in detention pre-trial is 1. unconstitutional, 2. a human rights violation, or 3. a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Yeah the appropriateness of pre trial detention and Bail/Bond is interesting. I can see the reasons for it, but it definitely also looks like one more way that the Justice system favors the wealthy. If you were to abolish bail, how would you discourage defendants just skipping town? I guess in the information age you could probably just ruin their lives remotely, but I'm sure someone would rape/kidnap/kill again after skipping town and we're back to pre trial detention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah the appropriateness of pre trial detention and Bail/Bond is interesting. I can see the reasons for it, but it definitely also looks like one more way that the Justice system favors the wealthy. You know that they don't give bail as an option to accused who are considered flight risks or clear dangers, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:If you were to abolish bail, how would you discourage defendants just skipping town? I guess in the information age you could probably just ruin their lives remotely, but I'm sure someone would rape/kidnap/kill again after skipping town and we're back to pre trial detention. If the person is too dangerous (e: or a flight risk) to be out on bail, the amount shouldn't matter. If that's not the case, there shouldn't be a two-tiered system where people who can afford it handle their case from home, people who can't are stuck in jail. e: Maybe if bail was set as a percentage of overall assets rather than a dollar amount? That would be a nightmare to calculate though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Dont forget the excessive bail prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:You know that they don't give bail as an option to accused who are considered flight risks or clear dangers, right? Yeah, but isn't the express purpose of bail to discourage flight from non flight risks? I was also asking about systems to discourage flight in a hypothetical environment without pre trial detention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
the point of bail is to destroy poor people who dare to be arrested
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, but isn't the express purpose of bail to discourage flight from non flight risks? Flight is actually pretty common, but bail denial or high amounts are definitely used to punish and to make people more amenable to dealing, and cops and prosecutors often openly talk about this and its pretty gross. But people go fugitive over dumb poo poo. Often the bond gets called in because someone's rear end in a top hat cousin that they put their car up for collateral for does a runner. It's a way the system screws over totally innocent people, which is just great. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Apr 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah, but isn't the express purpose of bail to discourage flight from non flight risks? In theory. In practice they just don't give flight risks the chance to skip bail, so the system ends up just being a penalty on the poor and money for some of the scummiest businesses in America. Rygar201 posted:I was also asking about systems to discourage flight in a hypothetical environment without pre trial detention. Generally, that people want to be able to continue to live in the same country and maintain the same life, neither of which you can do if you skip bail and are on the run. If they don't care about those things, then keep them incarcerated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
Given the event to which this thread was losing its tits about Evenwel v. Abbott I'm surprised not to hear anyone posting about it today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Yeah the opinion didn't really say much. It said the method in question was constitutional, and that was basically it right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah the opinion didn't really say much. It said the method in question was constitutional, and that was basically it right? There was a bit more making GBS threads all over ideas that plaintiffs proposed, but it was a slam dunk of settled law otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah the opinion didn't really say much. It said the method in question was constitutional, and that was basically it right? Justice Alito wrote a concurrence because he felt the majority was too mean to the plaintiffs, but agreed that the majority was still right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Justice Alito wrote a concurrence because he felt the majority was too mean to the plaintiffs, but agreed that the majority was still right. Oh my loving God, I missed that in the liveblog this morning, I'm going to read Ginsburg's opinion tonight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If the person is too dangerous (e: or a flight risk) to be out on bail, the amount shouldn't matter. If that's not the case, there shouldn't be a two-tiered system where people who can afford it handle their case from home, people who can't are stuck in jail. We already have an Office of the Chief Actuary, get them to work on a Pinky Swear actuarial chart. At least some sort of modified house arrest tracking should be doable while waiting for trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah the opinion didn't really say much. It said the method in question was constitutional, and that was basically it right? The opinion is weird in that a lot of the arguments RGB makes seem like arguments for why states might have to use total population, but the Court didn't reach that conclusion. To what extent might RBG be setting up arguments for a future case in which a state actually adopts the petitioner's proposed system and the SCOTUS tells them they can't? What would Roberts and Kennedy think about that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
We don't care what Roberts or Kennedy might think about that, because the 5-4 opinion will not include them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:We don't care what Roberts or Kennedy might think about that, because the 5-4 opinion will not include them. I think Trump will probably appoint someone who sides with Roberts though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 13:32
|
|
|
George Mason is spoiling our funquote:“The name, officially, remains ‘The Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University’ … But on its website and marketing materials, the name now reads: ‘The Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.’ ”
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:George Mason is spoiling our fun
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
So the Autism Spectrum Law School at George Mason.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
i figured it was honoring scalia's legendary sense of """""humor""""", in a way. way to prove the sterotype of lawyers being humorless, ASLS
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2016 09:07
|
|
