|
Baron Porkface posted:Do Public Defenders have a real incentive to do their job properly? What incentives do you have in mind that PDs might lack? PDs can get fired just like anybody else. The only 'real' incentive we lack is financial. If you're a PD, financial incentives are probably not very high up on your list of motivating incentives, anyway. For better or worse, in general, PD clients don't expect much from their attorneys, and it's not like they can take their business elsewhere. There is usually an informal feedback loop from judges and prosecutors to the boss PD, so folks who hope to take advantage of clients who expect little and expect their concerns to be ignored anyway don't last long. Folks like that are often financially motivated, so they also tend to self de-select. If there isn't involved leadership, or weak leadership, then you can have problems with lazy shitbirds (or newbies who don't get trained) Professional integrity and peer respect are side effects, not incentives. PT6A posted:How common is it for people to look down on defence lawyers because they "defend bad people"? Do people not understand that the only way to defend the wrongly accused is to ensure that everyone receives as strong a defence as possible? If the State wants to take away someone's freedom, that person gets an attorney. The end. No income test, no 'you made bond, get your own attorney,' no nothing. That attorney needs access to experts, an investigator and needs to have a manageable caseload. If you really want to eliminate the advantage of money, eliminate private defense counsel.  Vox Nihili posted:Do prosecutors have a real incentive to do their job properly? Being a good prosecutor is harder than being a good defense counsel. Baron Porkface posted:Is the large prison population in the U.S a good thing? WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:When dealing with highly paid defense attorneys, do they seem to be particularly more skilled/smart than other attorneys or is it more that they know judges/other attorneys/cops so they have a more commanding presence compared to other attorneys? Pook Good Mook posted:To me it seems that the biggest advantage knowing/having a private defense attorney is that they are quicker to respond in the early stages of a criminal trial. blarzgh posted:How many of you have actually dealt with Sovereign Citizens before? In this Texas municipal Court conference, when asked, like 75% of the prosecutors here raised their hands. Most of my clients are too poor to pay for the sovereign snake oil and too beaten down by the system to think it could ever help them. seacat posted:For a serious case (felony) would you rather defend someone you know for a fact is guilty or someone you know for a fact is innocent? Again, this is part of why being a prosecutor is harder than being a defense counsel. As a defense counsel, my job is clear. Fight as hard as you can; whether I think my client is guilty or innocent is immaterial. As a prosecutor, you have a duty to do justice; most of the time, there is no bright line, no clear guidance. You have to exercise your discretion. And explain that to victims and their families. And explain it to the press. And explain it to your boss. Very, very few prosecutors exercise their discretion; they take the easy way out and refuse to do their duty. Not a Children posted:What do you think will be the long-term consequences of having the legal profession flooded with underemployed (and, if the pessimists are to be believed, underqualified) lawyers? Context? This is like a Rohrschach question.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If I don't think someone is guilty I nolle the charges. Genuine question: how often does this happen, and how do you make that determination? What happens with "borderline" cases?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
I'm from Saskatchewan I've worked on some of these cases and there's no real defence trick that I can think of. At best you can appeal the decision to the Alberta Transportation Board. However, the Alberta Traffic Safety Act states as soon as the court finds that you driving at above 0.05 you are done and they have to uphold the suspended license. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Jun 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
I think that public defenders have an incentive to do well so that people will hire them when they transfer to the private sector. I'd rehire the guy who defended me in a second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm from Saskatchewan I've worked on some of these cases and there's no real defence trick that I can think of. At best you can appeal the decision to the Alberta Transportation Board. However, the Alberta Traffic Safety Act states as soon as the court finds that you driving at above 0.05 you are done and they have to uphold the suspended license. What I'm saying is that it's too easy for someone to get railroaded over not being able to provide a breath sample or driving at 0.06, but also too easy for someone who was at 0.15 to get off through a plea deal, like my idiot acquaintance who's managed to collect 6 DUI arrests/charges over no less than 3 jurisdictions, but no actual convictions (trust me, he was guilty every time). He still has a license, and probably still drives drunk regularly. It seems like DUI prosecution is broken as gently caress on all sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Robokomodo posted:I think that public defenders have an incentive to do well so that people will hire them when they transfer to the private sector. I'd rehire the guy who defended me in a second. Most PDs don't want to go into the private sector. I may have left PD work but working for the government as a lawyer is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Genuine question: how often does this happen, and how do you make that determination? What happens with "borderline" cases? The process of declining to prosecute people depends on who charges the person and what level the charges are. It's a pretty complicated question. The big factors are whether the crime is a misdo or a felony, and whether the crime happens in front of the officer or it's the result of an investigation. It's hard to generalize a strategy for screening cases other than "look at the police report, listen to whatever recordings, determine whether the case sucks." Also keep in mind that the grand jury is the one with ultimate charging authority for felonies. Several times we have referred charges to them, or initiated investigations for them with no charges resulting. And sometimes we refer, say, an assault case that they bump up to Attempted Murder. We then have no choice but to go forward with the Att. Murder. Sometimes the cases are "borderline" but not in the sense of whether the defendant is guilty, but rather the question is what crime can we prove? We know the end result is going to be "guilty," but is this a Murder 1 or Manslaughter? If a grand jury supports a Murder 1 charge, we would let the trial jury decide that question, because that is their job and not ours. Sometimes a case gets initiated but a speedbump is later identified, like we initiate an assault case then learn the victim moved to Greenland without telling anyone and we can't go forward. Sometimes we take cases that are hard to prove but the defendant is such a shitbag that we can't cut him the same slack as the soccer mom who had one too many wine coolers and slapped her husband. In short, that's a complicated question with a lot of moving parts. As with most questions asked of lawyers, the answer is "it depends." But if I'm not confident the facts support an eventual guilty verdict, there is a near-zero percent chance that I'm going to prosecute it. And even if the facts do support a guilty verdict, I'm probably not going to ask a jury to decide a $10 WalMart shoplifting case or a 30 year old dude with a joint. BigHead fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Can someone please explain to me how bail is legal? If you can't pay it, you sit in jail till your arraignment or even your trial, which could be weeks or even months. If you're found not guilty how has the state not committed a violation of your civil rights, or due process?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Titan posted:Can someone please explain to me how bail is legal? If you can't pay it, you sit in jail till your arraignment or even your trial, which could be weeks or even months. If you're found not guilty how has the state not committed a violation of your civil rights, or due process? From a layman's perspective, it's obvious that bail is a very imperfect system, but what alternative do you propose? A non-negligible percentage of arrestees really are guilty, and should be kept in jail, yet it's unconscionable to keep an innocent person in jail unnecessarily. Recently we had a case of someone out on bail killing someone in a hit-and-run here, after a gas-and-dash. That was clearly someone who was a danger to society and should've been kept in jail. To a certain extent, if we accept that people are innocent until proven guilty, one has to make sure it's possible to be released from jail pre-trail, but seriously painful to gently caress up while released. I don't know what the right answer is, unfortunately. If I, or anyone, did, then we wouldn't need the bail system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Bail is a surety designed to secure a defendant's appearance in court. This surety can be secured by anything, it's just usually cash. It's our view (I'm a PD) that cash only bail is illegal but it still happens all the time. People can also get out on supervised release without bail, where they have to check in with an intake officer and follow certain conditions pending trial. If they don't follow those conditions then supervised release gets yanked and they go back to jail to await their hearing. This usually works for a lot of people, especially people without a criminal history. Supervised release isn't usually granted to people with a long history of contempt of court/failure to appear or people who keep getting popped for similar charges. Another approach our courts use is bail with conditions, for example no contact provisions in abuse cases. Tokelau All Star fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Jun 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Titan posted:Can someone please explain to me how bail is legal? If you can't pay it, you sit in jail till your arraignment or even your trial, which could be weeks or even months. If you're found not guilty how has the state not committed a violation of your civil rights, or due process? In Alaska, bail exists to do two things: ensure the person's appearance in court and ensure that the person is following the court's conditions. The first concern is more or less a gut call by the judge, and depends on whether someone is a life-long Alaskan or whether they are a seasonal fisherman who has been in town for two weeks. Appearance is almost always backed up by cash. Appearance bond is handled three ways: "unsecured" is if you can't pay anything you just sign a piece of paper promising to show up. Then if you don't show up the court enters a civil judgment against you for whatever the paper says, and that civil judgment goes straight to collections. So if you sign a $500 unsecured bond, you just sign a piece of paper and get out of jail ASAP, then if you don't show up the $500 gets taken out of your next PFD (that sweet sweet gubbmint money Alaskans get every year). The other is through a bail bondsman. If they have to post, say, a $2500 appearance bond on your behalf, you have to put %10 down and then have collateral for the whole amount. They also own your rear end and will track you down if you go on the lam because it means they lose their $2500 if they lose you. The third way is just pony up the cash yourself. Bail in the vast vast majority of cases is either the unsecured or the $250 to the bondsman, which most people can scrounge up. The type of bail that ensures you perform on your conditions is called performance bail. Performance usually comes in only two ways: cold hard cash or we have a system of "Court Approved Third Parties." The CATP serves as your babysitter and is there to call the cops on you if you don't follow your conditions. Conditions always include no alcohol, and usually include things like no contact with the victim, don't return to wherever you burglarized, medication only by valid prescription, no driving, that sort of thing. If you pay the cash bail, which is usually in the $100-$300 range, and get caught I get to seize your cash (after a little mini trial). If you can't afford the cash, you ask your parents or girlfriend or coworker or an ankle monitor company or any combination thereof to babysit you. The babysitter isn't there to stop you from drinking, he's there to call the cops if you do drink or abscond or call that bitch of an ex wife whose leg you shot, leading to your pending assault charges. In Alaska, there is also a presumption that no bail is necessary, even for murderers. So we prosecutors need to convince a judge that you are a flight risk (tourists vs locals make an easy gut call) and that you won't perform on bail (it's not hard to convince a judge that a career alcoholic is probably going to drink tomorrow). Basically, unless you murder someone, you get out by signing a piece of paper or finding like $300 that you get back once you plead out or get found guilty or get found not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
What are everyones' feelings about the way forensic evidence is treated in courts at the moment? Do you think too much emphasis is placed on it? Do you think peoples' opinions of CSI science has interfered with the way you would want to/do run a trial? I know some forensic experts that have been giving evidence for decades and they really loving hate jury trials now. I'm sure some of it will be the way questioning is done in court vs how academics would like to pontificate, but they said its increasingly hard to get juries to respond to nuance/probablilities and put this down to the CSI effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
PT6A posted:From a layman's perspective, it's obvious that bail is a very imperfect system, but what alternative do you propose? A non-negligible percentage of arrestees really are guilty, and should be kept in jail, yet it's unconscionable to keep an innocent person in jail unnecessarily. Recently we had a case of someone out on bail killing someone in a hit-and-run here, after a gas-and-dash. That was clearly someone who was a danger to society and should've been kept in jail. To a certain extent, if we accept that people are innocent until proven guilty, one has to make sure it's possible to be released from jail pre-trail, but seriously painful to gently caress up while released. I don't know what the right answer is, unfortunately. If I, or anyone, did, then we wouldn't need the bail system. Washington DC has a pretty awesome system, it was on John Oliver's show a week or so back. A friend of a friend works there in DC and can't say enough good things about it. Otherwise, they need to reform the amounts especially on the misdo and light felony range. Yeah, in Minnesota for a misdo, the highest bail I ever saw was a couple thousand bucks, and they were generally under $1000. In the IE, LOWEST bail on schedule was $10,000 with the normal range being $75,000-$25,000 for a misdo. Low level felonies could easy be in six figures. That is a huge amount of money, even at 10%, often for offenses where no jail time would be imposed for a plea. Also, every day in jail costs the tax payers a huge amount of cash.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
nm posted:Washington DC has a pretty awesome system, it was on John Oliver's show a week or so back. Here's the link.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Re: Sovereign Citizens, I'm going to spend my 3rd of July going out to where some of them live where I'll call the cops on them and then inform the police that these people are not only breaking whatever law I care about but also don't believe in America. I'm going to wear my giant eagle shirt I bought at walmart under my seersucker suit. Question: What type of tie should I wear for this? The more sincerely patriotic the better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Re: Sovereign Citizens, I'm going to spend my 3rd of July going out to where some of them live where I'll call the cops on them and then inform the police that these people are not only breaking whatever law I care about but also don't believe in America. I'm going to wear my giant eagle shirt I bought at walmart under my seersucker suit. Ronald Reagan tie Edit: this would be better in the lawyer thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Re: Sovereign Citizens, I'm going to spend my 3rd of July going out to where some of them live where I'll call the cops on them and then inform the police that these people are not only breaking whatever law I care about but also don't believe in America. I'm going to wear my giant eagle shirt I bought at walmart under my seersucker suit. A red, white and blue bow tie with gold fringe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:A red, white and blue bow tie with gold fringe. But he won't be on a boat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
nm posted:But he won't be on a boat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Re: Sovereign Citizens, I'm going to spend my 3rd of July going out to where some of them live where I'll call the cops on them and then inform the police that these people are not only breaking whatever law I care about but also don't believe in America. I'm going to wear my giant eagle shirt I bought at walmart under my seersucker suit. If you can get this on a tie: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Question: What type of tie should I wear for this? The more sincerely patriotic the better. Different thread, different answer: an american flag tie, made from 100% american flags.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Hope this doesn't get too philosophical but what do you guys see as the most prevalent systemic problem in the justice system? i.e. what is the biggest "the whole design of this is hosed" rather than any individual case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Re: Sovereign Citizens, I'm going to spend my 3rd of July going out to where some of them live where I'll call the cops on them and then inform the police that these people are not only breaking whatever law I care about but also don't believe in America. I'm going to wear my giant eagle shirt I bought at walmart under my seersucker suit. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
It's my impression that there are limitations to a lawyer's ability to drop out of defending a client. What are they? Is it different for PDs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Can somebody explain voir dire to me? I agree that that people should be barred from serving on a jury if e.g. they know the defendant, or plaintiff, or so on. I don't really understand why the prosecution and defense are given the ability to strike jurors based on their personal opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
chunkles posted:Can somebody explain voir dire to me? I agree that that people should be barred from serving on a jury if e.g. they know the defendant, or plaintiff, or so on. I don't really understand why the prosecution and defense are given the ability to strike jurors based on their personal opinions. Basically you are looking for people who may be biased one way or the other. The idea is to get a neutral panel who will decide based on the evidence. So, for example, in a gang related homicide case, the defense would not want a juror who had a close family member murdered, as it might cloud their judgment. The prosecution might not want someone with a close family member in jail, as it may make them more sympathetic to the defendant. Voir dire is there to explore those possible biases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Javid posted:It's my impression that there are limitations to a lawyer's ability to drop out of defending a client. What are they? Is it different for PDs? As a general rule once you've entered an appearance you are stuck unless a clear conflict develops. Same rules apply to PDs. This is why most lawyers require a retainer. Client stops paying you, too bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
seacat posted:Hope this doesn't get too philosophical but what do you guys see as the most prevalent systemic problem in the justice system? i.e. what is the biggest "the whole design of this is hosed" rather than any individual case. This should probably go in the DnD debate the criminal justice thread. Also, logical fallacy. You immediately open with the presumption "the whole design is hosed"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:As a general rule once you've entered an appearance you are stuck unless a clear conflict develops. Same rules apply to PDs. This is why most lawyers require a retainer. Client stops paying you, too bad. Cases where a lawyer does have reason to legitimately withdraw from representation, aside from failure to pay a retainer, tend to involve the client trying to make the lawyer break the law as a part of the representation (for example, to facilitate witness intimidation). The details of this get a bit bizarre, but the usual process is colloquially called a "noisy withdrawal" - the attorney goes to the presiding judge and says the jurisdiction's legal equivalent of "confidentiality prevents me from telling you the details of why I must withdraw from representing my client, but I am withdrawing under  that rule that bars me from committing illegal activity on the client's command" .
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
That would be a clear conflict. There are some other examples and they usually hover around rules of professional responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
chunkles posted:Can somebody explain voir dire to me? I agree that that people should be barred from serving on a jury if e.g. they know the defendant, or plaintiff, or so on. I don't really understand why the prosecution and defense are given the ability to strike jurors based on their personal opinions. Also, there's something called a "Batson challenge" where the defense gets to complain that the prosecution is kicking all the minorities off the jury. A good voir dire provides non-racial excuses for the prosecution to justify those decisions, like, "Oh, his cousin's second mistress was a friend of the defendent's neighbor, so I had to kick him", or, "Oh, I find that <insert profession> is too biased in these cases", or "He looked at me funny, so he must be hostile to the prosecution".
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
sullat posted:Also, there's something called a "Batson challenge" where the defense gets to complain that the prosecution is kicking all the minorities off the jury. A good voir dire provides non-racial excuses for the prosecution to justify those decisions, like, "Oh, his cousin's second mistress was a friend of the defendent's neighbor, so I had to kick him", or, "Oh, I find that <insert profession> is too biased in these cases", or "He looked at me funny, so he must be hostile to the prosecution". I've seen defense get Batson challenged too where the victim was a minority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
chunkles posted:Can somebody explain voir dire to me? I agree that that people should be barred from serving on a jury if e.g. they know the defendant, or plaintiff, or so on. I don't really understand why the prosecution and defense are given the ability to strike jurors based on their personal opinions. Basically it's part of the adversarial design of the U.S. legal system. If prosecutors strike the people they think are most biased towards a defendant and defense counsel strike the most prosecution-biased people, you should wind up with a more neutral panel. Add to that that this avoids some level of judicial influence on the process (though the judge will still be the one striking for cause, sometimes at request of a party.) Jury selection is black magic, though. I've worked with extremely well regarded professional jury consultants (on large scale civil cases where paying for them makes sense) and their recommendations are typically things where I go "well, okay then, if that is what your experience says, but I sure as hell don't understand why."
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Jury selection is black magic, though. I've worked with extremely well regarded professional jury consultants (on large scale civil cases where paying for them makes sense) and their recommendations are typically things where I go "well, okay then, if that is what your experience says, but I sure as hell don't understand why." Is it black magic the way counterintuitibe statistics is--definitely real and gets actual results even if it looks totally bizarre and the conclusions are impentetrable, or is it more like arson investigations have been until recently--a bunch of self-reinforcing people convinced of their own utility who manage to convince others but actually are full of poo poo? For whoever asked about systemic problems in the justice system: the adverserial system itself is great in many ways, but it also has specific flaws. These flaws, I think, are better than an inquisitorial system in France, but the system makes some crimes--like rape--both hard to prosecute and extremely hard on the victim. The adverserial system also means, in civil cases, that the quality of representation matters a great deal, as how much money you can spend on experts et al. We also have deportation hearings that are almost farcically cruel. If you want to see horrible human tragedy, go sit in on one. I should note I am not a lawyer, but I do academic research in the justice system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This should probably go in the DnD debate the criminal justice thread. Disagree. I think there are some issues where people intimately involved in the process can provide deeper insight than "gently caress the police" and "mass incarceration bad." seacat posted:Hope this doesn't get too philosophical but what do you guys see as the most prevalent systemic problem in the justice system? i.e. what is the biggest "the whole design of this is hosed" rather than any individual case. My answer would be the separation between substantive and procedural justice and increased sentence length. During the civil rights era, you saw a massive expansion of procedural rights associated with criminal defendants. That's good, but it started a trend where the focus shifted from "is this person guilty" to the process employed. The net effect, combined with mandatory minimums and more crimes that are ancillary to the primary crime, removes justice/guilt as to the original offense and shifts the examination to the stuff along the way. You may have heard the phrase "they don't get you for the crime, they get you for the cover up" or "the Feds could indict a ham sandwich." They're both true now more than ever. Prosecutors leverage tons of process-based offenses (fraudulent tax returns, mail or wire fraud, lying to a federal official during the course of an investigation) to force a plea. The legislature, both state and federal, massively expanded the scope of what's a crime to compensate for the increased procedural protections provided to criminal defendants. You can see the results in recent cases. My personal favorite is the Sarbanes Oxley fish case: Yates. As a law clerk, I've seen tons of cases where the prosecutor couldn't prove the main thing they were going after but had the defendant on possession of a firearm, lying to a fed official, and other charges that had little factual nexus to the "real" offense. Another aspect is that mandatory minimums/sentencing guidelines remove judicial discretion to reduce, where appropriate, the sentence imposed. You might think judges love nothing more than sentencing people to eternity, but it really weighs on them. With guidelines and such, the legislature removed or radically restricted a judge's ability to inject humanity into the sentence. Basically, I just restated the thesis for The collapse of American Criminal Justice by Will Stuntz. Great book--really changed how I think the criminal justice system ought to function.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
My concern was with how the question was phrased. Trying to avoid turning this into a repeat of DnD echo chamber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Is it black magic the way counterintuitibe statistics is--definitely real and gets actual results even if it looks totally bizarre and the conclusions are impentetrable, or is it more like arson investigations have been until recently--a bunch of self-reinforcing people convinced of their own utility who manage to convince others but actually are full of poo poo? Much more the former, though there's still some level of "feel" to it that isn't statistically proven. It's a combination of statistics and demography with psychology, basically - interpreting how a person's life experience is likely to affect their judgment as a juror, and in particular how it will affect their decision making process in situations where there may not be an intuitive answer (eg are you better off with a college educated teacher or a high school educated lab tech in a patent case?). I think it's a lot less common to use a consultant in criminal cases, and the judgment of why you keep/strike is more intuitive there, but I don't do criminal work so I defer to the crim contingent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This should probably go in the DnD debate the criminal justice thread. Wow, I reread my post and realized that came off as juvenile. Totally not my intention, I just want a perspective on flaws in crim justice from people that have actually worked in it (I know plenty of gently caress tha cops/DA hosed me/etc types although no sovereign citizens, but no actual lawyers). Thanks Omertà for the thoughtful reply! What are the most significant differences between military courts and civilian courts? It seems to me since you basically sign away so many rights when you join the military the system would come down much harder on you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Actually with the exception of sexual assault I think the military affords a lot more rights to the defendant. Starting with appointed counsel and free experts regardless of income level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
I'm curious as to what the opinions are of the drug war from inside the system. It seems like the public faces of the system like police chiefs and police union bosses are always staunch drug warriors, I get the feeling that opinions are more diverse among the rank and file. What are your experiences? This is more a question about your co-workers than any people actually posting in here, since obviously drug war support and owning a Something Awful forums account don't typically go together.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
