Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Do You Trust the System?
Let’s play a little game. Imagine for a moment that you’ve been accused of a crime. As a good citizen, you go through the motions…arrest, bail, arraignment, hire the best damned lawyer you can, assist in preparing your defense, etc. You are a model prisoner during your short stay beneath the court house, unlike certain district attorneys lately in the news. The charge is a serious one, and the evidence is dicey; however, the crime you’re accused of is an emotional hot button issue.
Through the process, the prosecution has blown right past every opportunity to do the right thing, consider the whole situation, and dismiss the charges. After all the preparation work is done, a deal is offered which you reject, immediately and with obscenities, because you’d rather go to prison than impugn your own character and tarnish your integrity by taking the easy way out. A deal is a lie. Always. Your life is not a used car over which to haggle.
The day of trial approaches. Your attorney will make no guarantees, but he assures you that your chances of acquittal are better than average. The evidence isn’t great for the prosecution, and he has some tricks up his sleeve that should really help. Your family and friends stand with you. Everyone who has heard of the situation is dumbfounded that such an asinine travesty has been carried so far. And yet: fear.
Imagine you’re in this situation. We are a nation of laws. We have a system designed to impartially, and as fairly as possible, determine guilt or innocence. As a right-thinking (and -leaning) person, you’ve placed a lot of stock in the system to do its job and get it right as often as is humanly possible. These are all fine words and ideas, but now it’s your life, your liberty in jeopardy. Do you trust the system?
Published in General
Wait til you read his ‘Breaking Point.’ Of course it’s only fiction, but its verisimilitude will nevertheless help you understand why people become survivalists.
No. But, I consider trusting to be an overt act, a deliberate choice: trust, the state of mind, is not a broad, generic, default position. It requires good reasons. So, I have grave doubts. (But, FWIW, I do trust the entire, original, enlightenment framework at the end of the long causal chain of which our current system stands.)
No. I worked for several years as a consular officer, and some duties included ensuring that Americans who ran afoul of the law overseas received the same rights and privileges as did the nationals of that respective country. Most foreign states have far more legal advantages over the defendant than America does, and most officials within foreign legal systems are appointed, not elected. I developed the naive belief that things were better in the US, since by electing officials we could ensure accountability and fairness. I was quite young and did not fully understand how the very fact that DA’s and judges who are elected must seek re-election and this presents a major conflict of interest. They are not representing the interests of the state, and certainly not the defendant, but rather trying to establish records that help them win at the polls. An impressive conviction rate for DA’s, crowd-pleasing judgments from the bench: too often these matter more than your individual liberty and rights.
If by “trust the system” you mean trust it to get everything right, all the time, completely free of corruption and impropriety, then of course the answer must be “no.” It is a system designed and run by human beings, after all.
But relatively speaking, it’s a good system, and for the most part, can be trusted. I say this as a criminal defense attorney who frequently butts heads with prosecutors and police. A lot of room for improvement, to be sure, but if you’ve ever watched the great show “Locked Up Abroad,” you’ll appreciate our system.
I will say this, everything depends on the character of the judges, prosecutors, police, attorneys, etc… Elections matter, as they say, and in the election of judges and prosecutors, character should be the first concern of the voters.
I have great admiration for the police, prosecutors, judges and defenders who operate the criminal justice system. I can think of little more corrosive to the soul than being a judge having to examine horrific evidence photos to decide if their effect would be too prejudicial to let the jury see, for example. What these folks have to deal with, day after day, is profoundly disturbing and I’m grateful they are doing it instead of me.
The system is a system, however, and as KP points out above, it does seem to have become optimised for the (usual) guilty case. I can’t help feeling that this is not just the inevitable consequence of having to deal with mass population. Having a criminal justice system that compares favourably with that of Thailand or Ecuador doesn’t seem a high-enough ambition for the shining city on a hill.
No. One of my greatest fears is being targeted by some bureaucrat somewhere.
Here’s another question: do you think a wild disparity between the charge being brought and the deal being offered says anything about the prosecutor’s goal or intent? Does it say that he does not believe the crime occured or that the accused is guilty, but that after setting the machine in motion something must be accomplished to justify its animation?
Twice I have been accused by the system both wrongfully. Once in the military and once in the course of my business. Nothing earth shaking mind you. Both had rather serious consequences however. Without getting into details both times a serendipitous event proved my innocence. Both times the system was out for blood. I was lucky rather than having the system work to achieve justice. The best way to beat the system is to avoid it.
It does not necessarily reflect the prosecutor’s intent. It may simply reflect a practical problem in bring the case to trial. It may also reflect the prosecutor’s belief that although the defendant is guilty, some just reason exists for easier treatment.
Keep in mind, every case is very different, and it can be difficult to determine a just result. For example, say three guys barge into an apartment and beat up someone living there. Most likely all three will be charged with some kind of aggravated burglary, because they all participated in one form or another and are accomplices to each other. But as the case moves forward, there are conflicting accounts as to who actually threw punches, maybe some claim they were attacked first by the resident, maybe one who did not throw a punch was the prime instigator, and so on. So the deals offered may reflect what the prosecutor thinks can be proved against each defendant, and so some get greatly reduced charges.
Well, when the alleged victim will not positively testify to a necessary element of the supposed crime existing it sure looks like the prosecutor is just burning the budget at the end of a fiscal year in which trials have been down and toying with lives unnecessarily.
The goal of prosecutors is to win. Not justice.
You win best by fighting dirty. The state has infinite capability to do that against Joe Citizen.
The problem is not the system, but the people who run it.
-E
No.
The system seems designed to punish the innocent and let the guilty as sin go.
Even if you do manage to be both actually be innocent and get let go, the trial and appeals will bankrupt you, destroy your life, and ruin your future.
And then the guy who actually rapes and murders someone goes free early on. Its arbitrary justice, and it doesn’t work.
I couldn’t disagree with this more. As I indicated above, I think the system’s far from perfect, and there are certainly some terrible results out there, but “designed to punish the innocent,” or “arbitrary,” is, to put it kindly, far from the truth.
What leads you to this perception? How would you design a criminal justice system?
No, not without a very good lawyer. Remember the Duke Case?
The Federal prosecutor are probably the worst… ask former Senator Ted Stevens.
The Justice Department has found that two prosecutors involved in the botched 2008 corruption trial of Senator Ted Stevens engaged in “reckless professional misconduct,” but it stopped short of firing the men, saying their mistakes were not intentional.
In a cover letter to a 672-page report provided to Congress on Thursday, alongside additional attachments and findings, the Justice Department said the two prosecutors would be suspended without pay — Joseph Bottini for 40 days, and James Goeke for 15 days.
So, for reckless professional misconduct, the two prosecutors are merely suspended? What message is that sending? And what compensation does Ted Stevens get?
Or what about these New Orleans police officers.
Citing the “grotesque” misconduct” of federal prosecutors, a judge on Tuesday granted a new trial for five former New Orleans Police Department officers convicted in the deadly shootings at the Danziger Bridge …..
In a 129-page order that strongly criticized prosecutors in former U.S. Attorney Jim Letten’s office, U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt pointed to “unprecedented events and acts” that “has taken the court on a legal odyssey unlike any other.”
The revelations and other instances of misconduct prompted Engelhardt to call for a criminal probe of former prosecutors Sal Perricone and Jan Mann, neither of whom were directly involved in prosecuting the Danziger Bridge case. Tuesday’s order alluded to additional misconduct uncovered by that probe.
From Justice Dept. 2010 stats:
That 93% conviction rate is what I’d expect in a pretty heavily rigged system.
So no. I don’t trust the justice system, particularly the federal system, since the the Justice Dept. exhibits some characteristics of a rogue agency.
So, Cowboy, what about the local system and with the best lawyer in the area for the type of charge? The normal disadvantages of a public defender have been excised, and there is no federal bureaucracy bearing down. Given that everything is about as mundane and free of corruption as can be expected, is the system a better bet than the sure thing of taking a plea?
In a local court, I’d take may chances on a trial. Local prosecutors and judges in Texas are elected, and presumably more sensitive to being perceived as unfair by the public and the press.
The only area I might consider a deal is if the law itself was unclear… more of possible regulatory infraction with no criminal liability.
This is incorrect. We need government to be a limited-powers system precisely because NO men are angels.
For starters, there should not BE a criminal justice system. If Joe harms Steve, Joe should pay Steve. That is a tort – the King has no place in it. This will lead, in the case of the poor or the intractable, to work houses (or asylums for those who cannot work).
If you remove government as a beneficiary of crime, then it helps a very great deal. Then government’s only vested interest in justice is to ensure that people trust it (so they don’t bring their business to an adjudicator or some other private court).
BTW, this was the way justice is outlined in the Torah.
Too many variables to give a simple “yes” or “no” answer.
Depends on the charge (criminal? financial? tax? family? traffic?).
Depends on the jurisdiction (federal?, state?, county?).
Depends on the prosecutor (elected? appointed? rookie? veteran?).
Depends on how well the accused understands and invokes his/her constitutional rights.
Etc.
I don’t disagree, but even a limited-powers system requires some degree of virtue in the participants to function. The current administration is proof of that.
-E
Or, it could mean that they pass on a lot of cases because they aren’t convinced they can secure a conviction.
I dunno how it works in the US, but in Canuckistan the policy is to not lay charges unless the Crown is convinced it has a very strong chance of getting a conviction. This policy often makes victims and their families quite angry, as they see suspects “getting away with it”.
Go best case scenario, Mis. Criminal charges, county jurisdiction, elected prosecutor (though handled by an assistant, of course), and no self incrimination throughout the process. As the original scenario states, the evidence is not solid. There is no slam dunk for the prosecution, but it is an emotional issue from which he can hope to garner rage out of the jury. It’s really a toss up legally. The jury could refuse to generate intent where none exists, or it could manufacture motive of which there is no evidence presented. It really comes down to the manner in which the evidence is presented and refuted, and whether or not your fellow citizens take their duty seriously and make their determination solely based on the evidence rather than emotion. Do you trust yourself to such people?
But there’s also criminal justice in the Torah. A very high bar is set for conviction, but without jails, the punishment is death.
Notably, establishment of a criminal justice system is one of the 7 Noachide laws–the basic laws that Jews believe God gave to everyone (as opposed to the laws in the Torah, which apply only to the Jewish people). Most Jewish commentators even go so far as to say that such a system is in compliance with God’s will only if it includes capital punishment for murder.
That is a really good question. No I do not. Because it comes down to who has the swiftest speaking lawyer and a roll of the dice on the jury selection. The odds should be in an acquital, but I certainly wouldn’t trust the system.
The defense lawyer in question has a reputation for winning in such cases. He’s known as a bastard. He’s the one the public defender said to hire if at all possible. Does this information change the calculation?
Progressives who do not believe in God but swear an oath to God to protect God given freedoms and morality and limited
government and such do not have fundamental integrity of honor and purpose that is required for our honor based system to function.
They assume power to exercise power, not protect the rights of the people.
It is proof that our system no longer limits powers.
I don’t think the Noachide law is for criminal justice – it is for justice, period.
But I agree that I overstated: capital offenses must be handled. It would still eliminate the 19th century invention of prisons.