9 ms·

Rikers Drove My Innocent Patient to Plead Guilty

170 points by de_Selby 11y ago

tluyben2 11y ago
Many stories like this around and I still do not understand it; how does it happen in a western country (not to mention the richest country)? A judge would have to glance over the evidence for 5 seconds and another jail spot would be free. Sure the conditions in those jails are really insane for a western country, however for hardcore convicted criminals I guess there are some (...) people who think that's ok, but what's up with the having people wait for trials in trivial cases?
- gizmo 11y ago
  Unfortunately, your logic is based on a faulty premise. It's not the goal of the american justice system to fairly enforce the law and to rehabilitate criminals so they can reenter society. The evidence that the current "tough on crime" approach doesn't work is utterly overwhelming, but that doesn't matter in the least if building a more just society isn't the goal in the first place. The reality is that the justice system is two-tiered. As long as powerful people don't get crushed by the system there's no real incentive for them to enact change. The American public is convinced only real criminals get treated inhumanely; it can't possibly happen to them. So they don't demand change from their politicians. And so the cycle of police abuse, minimum sentencing laws, plea bargains and other brutality continues. The victims of the system are utterly expendable economically, and the public doesn't care or even notice what's going on. See for instance "With Liberty and Justice for Some", by Greenwald (the guy who published the Snowden leaks)
  - everyone 11y ago
    Its not just lack of motivation for justice. Theres a positive motivation from the burgeoning prison-industrial-complex to keep as many people in prison for as long as possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_comp... Its big business, and its lobbying power and political clout continues to grow exponentially (if they get harsher laws and penalties enacted then they get more inmates and their business grows, allowing them greater lobbying power, and so on) Its one of those seemingly insane systems that can develop over time but is very hard to stop as it has so much momentum and involved parties. Theres plenty of other examples in the US like food production and energy etc.
    - gizmo 11y ago
      It's still the indifference of society at large that allows the prison complex to go wild. In all areas of society there are incentives that are completely at odds with the common good, but there's a huge difference between countries to what organizations are allowed to do for personal gain. I agree that once you get to the point where politicians are bought and paid for, as well as the media and all educational institutions it's very hard to stop. Democracy has been hollowed out. Don't vote Kang. Vote Kodos!
      - everyone 11y ago
        I think the US is really feeling the effects of having its anti-trust laws gutted a few decades ago. I wouldnt despair though, in the late 19th century you had a similar situation with so called robber-barons and through consistent grassroots action anti-trust laws and other socal reforms were enacted. Making a fairer society takes a lot of hard work over a long time (and constant vigilance) but its been shown to be possible many times even against seemingly insurmountable odds. ps. I'd recommend that documentary film 'the corporation' from 2003.
        gizmo 11y ago
        I'm not so sure I share your optimism. Just because we dodged the last two bullets doesn't mean we'll dodge the next one. Countries can (and do) slide into totalitarianism and today's technology can be used to create a dystopia bleaker than anything the world has ever seen. It's tempting to look at history as some sort of heroic epic. Times are bleak, people struggle, but ultimately human ingenuity and sacrifice wins the day. Real life isn't like that. If we mess up badly enough it's just game over. There is no Game Master that will put humanity back on track to ensure a positive outcome. Complete failure is always an option, and if we take for granted that all problems are fixable then sooner or later we'll run into a problem that isn't.
        everyone 11y ago
        All true. But one must try! By saying dont despair that is all I really meant, do not despair. The people who suceeded in the past certainly tried. Even just setting a good personal example is a step, if everyone did that the problem would be fixed, and you may inspire those around you in subtle ways. Globally humans are facing some of the biggest threats in history, looming food and water shortages and the resultant wars (possibly nuclear) Jared Diamond in his fantastic book 'Collapse' describes well documented examples of societies that completely collapsed in the past, and we are now globally facing many of the same set of factors that felled them. However he also presents positive examples of societies predicting serious problems and systematically taking steps to prevent them, for example the problems of deforestation in Germany and Japan were arrested and they established sustainable forestry.
  - vijayr 11y ago
    The attitude of American public about criminals is also not great. For example, it is appalling how common male prison rape jokes are in the US (in movies, in everyday conversations etc) - how can one joke about it, I don't understand. These jokes aren't as common in other western countries. Most people don't seem to have any compassion for criminals at all, regardless of the circumstances in which those crimes were committed. Add to this no one would hire an ex con - even a non violent one. It is not just the powerful people, everyone's attitude needs to change towards this problem. The US has more than a fifth of world's prison population. It is a serious problem, something needs to change.
- anon4 11y ago
  But can you imagine what would happen if we allowed poor people to get out of it so easily? Everybody has a run-in with the law at some point and it serves to enforce social order. The rich pay a law tax and the poor are prevented from moving to a higher class. I mean, can you imagine how horrifying it would be to have all those poor people mingling in with us of noble birth? Awful, just awful. The system is a bit inefficient, I'll grant you that. Maybe when you turn 18 you pay half a million or get an automatic felony. You would have broken the law anyway... p.s. </sarcasm>
- de_Selby 11y ago
  Well, to nitpick slightly, the case here was a potential homicide, so it didn't really count as trivial. It should be an open and shut case though. As I read the article I found myself getting angrier and angrier at how it was playing out & how powerless I or anyone else was to do anything about it. Of course I was aware of the concept of plea bargaining, but I had no idea such an overwhelming majority of cases are settled that way. Like you suggest, there should probably be some court where clear cut cases like this are heard so they are dealt with quickly and efficiently. I'm not from the US so I'm but sure if such a concept already exists and it's just the magnitude of the potential crime here that's the obstacle?
- pjc50 11y ago
  The story avoids mentioning the ethnicity of the accused in this case, but the US system's brutality cannot be disentangled from its racism. I'd be very surprised if this kind of treatment was given to the average white guy who hits someone with a car. But a nonwhite guy on a motorbike? Much more plausible.
  - Fede_V 11y ago
    I agree with the second part completely, but the story did mention the ethnicity of the accused.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    He seemed to be from "white trash" origins from the description. Which for the system is as good as black or mexican.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    >I'd be very surprised if this kind of treatment // That's just blunt discrimination unless it's based on data/stats you trust. Basically what you appear to be using the "I'd be surprised" phrase to avoid really saying is that 'white people are racists and so the system, which they control, must be tailored to let them off more cheaply'; that's fine with strong trustworthy data IMO, without you're just being racist.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Racial disparity in the system is like global warming: there's lots of evidence which you have to work hard not to see. You could start with, eg http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3499&context=flr http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=349... and its references and footnotes. Footnote 4 contains the surprising sentence: "Very few whites were charged with crimes in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I was a public defender for twelve years and carried a full caseload for six years. I represented only two white defendants during those years. The exper- iences of my colleagues were very similar"
- littletimmy 11y ago
  The United States is a capitalist country. If you don't have capital, you're screwed.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >and another jail spot would be free D.A's are making their name for political reasons by number of convictions. And judges can even be making money off of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
randomname2 11y ago
At least he got a trial. /sarc
- randomname2 11y ago
  Just to put this into context, this is of course a terrible injustice, but even worse was Kalief Browder, the teen who killed himself after being imprisoned in Rikers for three years without a trial. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law
given 11y ago
I guess the suspects should not go to the same place as the convicts. So prisons only for convicts and "safekeeping places" (which are not allowed to be near a prison) for the suspects. To treat suspects like criminals is not right. You and me could end up being a suspect without the slightest guilt in the matter.
- asdfasdfsd 11y ago
  If innocent until proven guilty, why treat them as guilty until their hearing. Clearly they are treating them as such, so where is my error?
  - bitJericho 11y ago
    Because we're supposed to have speedy trials. The state should have the right to hold suspects until trial, because otherwise you'd be letting potential criminals run free (and run away).
    - joesb 11y ago
      > because otherwise you'd be letting potential criminals run free Well, if we want to keep the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" then potential criminals should be allowed to run free.
    - gtremper 11y ago
      Everyone is a potential criminal.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  > I guess the suspects should not go to the same place as the convicts. By and large, they don't. Suspects go to county or city jail, not prison, to wait for bail or their court date. Convicted persons go to prison. The issue is that a large, and growing, percentage of the pre-trial jail population is repeat offenders, people who have been to prison and therefore the jail environment begins to resemble the prison environment. In the county where I work, with a total population of nearly 1 million people, the jail houses about 2300 inmates on a regular basis. Those inmates are classified and housed based on a number of factors, including the type and severity of their current charges, their criminal history, direct observation by medical and psychological staff, age and infirmity, and so on. Still, even with this sensible approach to keeping the "hardcore" inmates away from those accused of minor crimes, occasionally someone who has never seen the inside of a jail before ends up in a cell or dorm with career criminals. There's no easy solution, but proper classification and staff education go a long way towards keeping pre-trial jails safer for the accused. As for the subject of this article, I can't help but wonder how high his bond was set for that particular charge, given that most bonding companies typically charge no more than 15% of the total bond amount. Even if his bond was $10,000 (which would be consistent with the charge here in Georgia, but of course NYC may be drastically different), the fee to a professional bondsman would be $1500, something his family and friends could scrape together. Even if his bond was set higher than that, he could have petitioned the judge for a reduced bond or even a ROR (released on his own recognizance) bond, given the non-violent nature of the offense and the fact he's never had a felony conviction. No, it sounds like a big part of the problem is apathy on the part of the public defender's office in NYC, coupled with district attorneys who care more about conviction rates than actual justice and judges who are nothing more than rubber stamp machines.
tdkl 11y ago
It's not "twisted" justice system. It's totalitarian. Using scare tactics like this is brainwashing the person in question to be in state in saying, feeling, showing something he wouldn't in the lack of these circumstances in a democratic country.
jimrandomh 11y ago
New York has a legal and constitutional obligation to hire enough judges, public defenders and court staff to provide speedy trials for all of the accused. "Speedy" is legally defined to mean six months. For some reason, they haven't done it, resulting in the crime against humanity that is Rikers Island. This is odd, because I can't imagine they even save money this way; imprisoning people is expensive.
- vidarh 11y ago
  New York defines this differently. From an article about Kalief Browder[1] who spent 3 years at Rikers before charges were just dropped (he subsequently committed suicide): > Many states have so-called speedy-trial laws, which require trials to start within a certain time frame. New York State’s version is slightly different, and is known as the “ready rule.” This rule stipulates that all felony cases (except homicides) must be ready for trial within six months of arraignment, or else the charges can be dismissed. In practice, however, this time limit is subject to technicalities. The clock stops for many reasons—for example, when defense attorneys submit motions before trial—so that the amount of time that is officially held to have elapsed can be wildly different from the amount of time that really has. In 2011, seventy-four per cent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months. > In order for a trial to start, both the defense attorney and the prosecutor have to declare that they are ready; the court clerk then searches for a trial judge who is free and transfers the case, and jury selection can begin. Not long after Browder was indicted, an assistant district attorney sent the court a “Notice of Readiness,” stating that “the People are ready for trial.” The case was put on the calendar for possible trial on December 10th, but it did not start that day. On January 28, 2011, Browder’s two-hundred-and-fifty-eighth day in jail, he was brought back to the courthouse once again. This time, the prosecutor said, “The People are not ready. We are requesting one week.” The next court date set by the judge—March 9th—was not one week away but six. ... and so it continued. He went to court 31 times. None of those times for the actual trial. Yet most of the 3 years he spent at Rikers, the "clock was stopped" and so it was not counted by the court as more than 6 months. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-...
  - 11y ago
blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Plea bargaining should not exist. It makes a mockery of justice, turns the legal system into a marketplace where you bid for relative degrees of guilt and are rewarded for "copping a plea", and occasionally snares the innocent. The war on drugs has clogged the system, but also our somewhat lawless and rudderless population since the early 1960s, when a generally orderly society gave way to a general contempt for authority. And the population has grown far faster than the number of courts to accommodate it. I think the only solution is to legalize drugs and build more courts to address the remaining cases more quickly and efficiently, without throwing due process out the window. Better education would help, too. And instill moral education in our children in the schools and at home. In the end, a more moral society will bring about a more moral justice system.
- sneak 11y ago
  A contempt for authority results in a healthy, vibrant society. You may recall what happened in the 30s in Germany when it was present to an insufficient degree, or in the US in Vietnam. There's a reason the 60s saw a backlash, and it wasn't disproportionate.
  - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
    30s Germany was a completely different situation; it was the Great Depression, combined with the humiliation of total defeat in WWI and onerous terms of surrender. Germans rallied behind a strong leader and were willing to forego liberty for the sake of national pride. The 60s backlash against Vietnam was largely because they began drafting college students. It was an outlet for restless, idle youth who were the most pampered, spoiled generation in history. And it did nothing to shorten the war; in fact it gave moral support to the Communists at a time when they were very frustrated, e.g. the Tet Offensive which was a military failure for the North.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Maybe if that contempt for authority had been more present when the US was first getting involved in Vietnam, that whole mess wouldn't have gotten as far as it did in the first place.
hughperkins 11y ago
1. It seems he really did kill someone with his bike. But it's not clear to me why this would be considered a homicide? Is this standard practice in USA? 2. For some reason, it seems common practice in USA to assume that if someone decided not to go to trial, that this means they admitted their guilt. This seems .... bizarre somehow. Perhaps 'pleading guilty' should be changed semantically to 'chose not to go to trial'? 3. It seems odd that if you are convicted of a felony that this means that you'll basically be unable to get a job for the rest of your life. How is this going to help rehabilitate people? Might as well just execute them. At least its quick. (At least, it is quick in China, which is where I live).
- c4n4rd 11y ago
  1. Someone died. Most DAs (district attorneys) sees this as a reason to charge people. They will charge even if it is not the case so that the shirt-storm that might come from the media does not fall into his hands - it is like district attorneys think: "It will not decide, let the jury decide and I have my hands clean: If the person was found guilty, it was the jury who did it. If not found guilty, it was also the jury - so do not blame me for the situation" 2. You really need to watch a documentary called "The Plea" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/) to get an insight on how FUCKED UP the "justice" in the USA is. 3. The media and politicians have much to blame here. If you are ever convicted of a crime (even like in the case of a plea bargain) you life is likely over because no one wants to take a chance by hiring a "convict" - Business do not want to take this kind of risk.
  - revelation 11y ago
    Huh? No, the majority of people who kill others using a vehicle of sorts are not ever charged (certainly not in NY), not even given as much as a ticket. If you remain at the scene and are not drunk, you can drive tomorrow. (This applies even if your license is suspended or you were otherwise reckless.) Now, the mistake you can not make is to choose the wrong mode of transport in your killing. Apparently this kid used a motorcycle. Any other transport but the good ol' car is an out group; you drastically increase your chances of being charged by using it. (Not that I want to take the stance of this article that this is all "an accident"; too many reckless crashes are written off as "accidents". If you take a high-powered machine into the public, you should accept criminal responsibility regardless of your fault in a matter simply because of the excess risk you have brought into the equation.)
wampus 11y ago
A person is dead because of this man's inability to control a lethal force. There may be nuances to the case, but he isn't innocent, even by his own account of the facts. As a cyclist who has to constantly contend with aggressive motorists, unpredictable pedestrians and plenty of other douchebag cyclists, I'm relieved this guy is off the road for a couple of years. But that doesn't mean he should be exposed to any of the horrors we've come to associate with US prisons. Rape? Regular beatings? Relentless racism? How is this cruel and unusual punishment not a violation of constitutional rights?
- mariodiana 11y ago
  "[T]his man's inability to control a lethal force." Did I miss something in the article that you found?
- coldtea 11y ago
  >An person is dead because of this man's inability to control a lethal force. There may be nuances to the case, but he isn't innocent, even by his own account of the facts. (...) I'm relieved this guy is off the road for a couple of years. Are you kidding me? "Chris sustained a broken hip, broken collarbone and internal injuries, but the teenager was dead. Chris denied he’d been drinking, and a Breathalyzer confirmed it. He also said he hadn’t been speeding, which was borne out by eyewitnesses as well as a police test on the tire marks." How would you like such a jail experience, even without the horrors, for a mere accident? Especially one when some idiot jumped at you. You speak more "as a cyclist who has to constantly contend with aggressive motorists" than someone clearheaded who evaluated the case. And you know cyclists can do stupid things too like cut people off, turn unexpectedly etc, and cause accidents. In fact there are tons of "aggressive cyclists" who think traffic laws don't apply to them because they don't drive a car -- and kids who just want a thrill.
  - wampus 11y ago
    The severity of his own injuries indicates that he might have been going too fast for the conditions (whether or not he was exceeding the speed limit, which nobody can confirm conclusively). In his version, "It was like he fell out of the sky," but that's a misleading comparison that paints him as entirely innocent. "The kid darted out from behind a bus," sounds more like a situation that required caution (was the bus pulled over to discharge passengers?). "Doesn’t he have any responsibility for what happened?" he says of the victim. Yes, he does, but the person who wields the most lethal power also bears the most responsibility. Unless a pedestrian intentionally and directly charged me or truly fell out of the sky, I would assume blame if I hit one while riding or driving.
jimworm 11y ago
It has been known for millennia that confessions obtained under torture are very effective at reducing the workload of the courts. So much so, that a billion-dollar industry can grow its own market at will with a minimum increase in judicial expenses. What's the next "disruption" in the industry? Automated guilt-finding? Mass surveillance, check. Self-running prisons? Automated jail management, check. Automated lawyers? Watson, check. The system is turning into a predator that seeks out the slow and weak as prey; unfortunately, unlike a predator in nature, it decreases the health of the entire herd. To naively take the predator analogy to the extreme, it would be more beneficial for a nation to randomly select poor people and summarily execute them than maintain a justice system that deals almost exclusively in injustice.
jensen123 11y ago
Many people seem to think that human rights abuses is something that only happens in dictatorships, and not democracies. I wonder, though, if you compare say the US with China, is China any worse? Or the US compared to the old monarchies in Europe, on a per capita basis?
- vidarh 11y ago
  China certainly imprisons a much smaller proportion of its population, so that's a good question. "Worse" probably depends on who you ask. China is decidedly un-free for everyone in that everyone knows that certain things puts you at risk, and so e.g. in terms of free speech China is clearly worse. But if you're sufficiently poor in the US, your odds of spending a substantial proportion of your life in prison is vastly higher than in China, and I frankly don't know if your chance of getting a reasonably fair trial in the US in that situation is all that much better than China. Personally, if I in some parallel universe found myself on a US jury (which I won't - I'n not US), I would vote to acquit in all but the most atrocious cases, as I would not in good conscience find it moral to contribute to subjecting anyone to the US prison system. But as we see in the article, in most cases, it's not up to a jury.
Asbostos 11y ago
How is a plea deal not duress? Imagine if a cop pointed a gun at you and said "I'll shoot you unless you confess". We wouldn't accept that confession but we do accept a prosecutor saying "you'll get the death penalty at trial unless you plead guilty now." Same goes for lesser sentences vs threats of physical violence.
- jjoonathan 11y ago
  By any reasonable definition of the term it is. Of course, it's the courts that get to define these things and you can bet that they exempt themselves.
- sp332 11y ago
  Because they can't directly give the person a death sentence. If you turn down the plea, you go to a regular trial where a jury determines if you're guilty and the judge & jury determine your sentence.
  - hughperkins 11y ago
    Well, they do, after several years at Rikers ...
- Someone 11y ago
  I think the problem isn't just plea deals but the combination of plea deals with holding suspects for way longer than the law allows, and under inhumane circumstances to beat. If this guy had been let out of jail, still had his job and girlfriend, and didn't have to experience Rikers while he waited for his trial, giving him the option to choose between a certain thing and the somewhat gamble of a trial still could be called cruel, but I think it would be significantly less so. Surely, it would be more likely that a suspect will hear "You can get the death penalty unless you plead guilty now", even if the prosecutor says "you will".
joesmo 11y ago
Since clearly Rikers has over 400 violations of the 6th Amendment (since by no sane person's definition can over two years in jail be considered speedy), how about releasing these people on their own recognizance until trial?

170 points by de_Selby 11y ago

Many stories like this around and I still do not understand it; how does it happen in a western country (not to mention the richest country)? A judge would have to glance over the evidence for 5 seconds and another jail spot would be free. Sure the conditions in those jails are really insane for a western country, however for hardcore convicted criminals I guess there are some (...) people who think that's ok, but what's up with the having people wait for trials in trivial cases?

gizmo 11y ago
Unfortunately, your logic is based on a faulty premise. It's not the goal of the american justice system to fairly enforce the law and to rehabilitate criminals so they can reenter society. The evidence that the current "tough on crime" approach doesn't work is utterly overwhelming, but that doesn't matter in the least if building a more just society isn't the goal in the first place. The reality is that the justice system is two-tiered. As long as powerful people don't get crushed by the system there's no real incentive for them to enact change. The American public is convinced only real criminals get treated inhumanely; it can't possibly happen to them. So they don't demand change from their politicians. And so the cycle of police abuse, minimum sentencing laws, plea bargains and other brutality continues. The victims of the system are utterly expendable economically, and the public doesn't care or even notice what's going on. See for instance "With Liberty and Justice for Some", by Greenwald (the guy who published the Snowden leaks)
- everyone 11y ago
  Its not just lack of motivation for justice. Theres a positive motivation from the burgeoning prison-industrial-complex to keep as many people in prison for as long as possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_comp... Its big business, and its lobbying power and political clout continues to grow exponentially (if they get harsher laws and penalties enacted then they get more inmates and their business grows, allowing them greater lobbying power, and so on) Its one of those seemingly insane systems that can develop over time but is very hard to stop as it has so much momentum and involved parties. Theres plenty of other examples in the US like food production and energy etc.
  - gizmo 11y ago
    It's still the indifference of society at large that allows the prison complex to go wild. In all areas of society there are incentives that are completely at odds with the common good, but there's a huge difference between countries to what organizations are allowed to do for personal gain. I agree that once you get to the point where politicians are bought and paid for, as well as the media and all educational institutions it's very hard to stop. Democracy has been hollowed out. Don't vote Kang. Vote Kodos!
    - everyone 11y ago
      I think the US is really feeling the effects of having its anti-trust laws gutted a few decades ago. I wouldnt despair though, in the late 19th century you had a similar situation with so called robber-barons and through consistent grassroots action anti-trust laws and other socal reforms were enacted. Making a fairer society takes a lot of hard work over a long time (and constant vigilance) but its been shown to be possible many times even against seemingly insurmountable odds. ps. I'd recommend that documentary film 'the corporation' from 2003.
      - gizmo 11y ago
        I'm not so sure I share your optimism. Just because we dodged the last two bullets doesn't mean we'll dodge the next one. Countries can (and do) slide into totalitarianism and today's technology can be used to create a dystopia bleaker than anything the world has ever seen. It's tempting to look at history as some sort of heroic epic. Times are bleak, people struggle, but ultimately human ingenuity and sacrifice wins the day. Real life isn't like that. If we mess up badly enough it's just game over. There is no Game Master that will put humanity back on track to ensure a positive outcome. Complete failure is always an option, and if we take for granted that all problems are fixable then sooner or later we'll run into a problem that isn't.
        everyone 11y ago
        All true. But one must try! By saying dont despair that is all I really meant, do not despair. The people who suceeded in the past certainly tried. Even just setting a good personal example is a step, if everyone did that the problem would be fixed, and you may inspire those around you in subtle ways. Globally humans are facing some of the biggest threats in history, looming food and water shortages and the resultant wars (possibly nuclear) Jared Diamond in his fantastic book 'Collapse' describes well documented examples of societies that completely collapsed in the past, and we are now globally facing many of the same set of factors that felled them. However he also presents positive examples of societies predicting serious problems and systematically taking steps to prevent them, for example the problems of deforestation in Germany and Japan were arrested and they established sustainable forestry.
- vijayr 11y ago
  The attitude of American public about criminals is also not great. For example, it is appalling how common male prison rape jokes are in the US (in movies, in everyday conversations etc) - how can one joke about it, I don't understand. These jokes aren't as common in other western countries. Most people don't seem to have any compassion for criminals at all, regardless of the circumstances in which those crimes were committed. Add to this no one would hire an ex con - even a non violent one. It is not just the powerful people, everyone's attitude needs to change towards this problem. The US has more than a fifth of world's prison population. It is a serious problem, something needs to change.
anon4 11y ago
But can you imagine what would happen if we allowed poor people to get out of it so easily? Everybody has a run-in with the law at some point and it serves to enforce social order. The rich pay a law tax and the poor are prevented from moving to a higher class. I mean, can you imagine how horrifying it would be to have all those poor people mingling in with us of noble birth? Awful, just awful. The system is a bit inefficient, I'll grant you that. Maybe when you turn 18 you pay half a million or get an automatic felony. You would have broken the law anyway... p.s. </sarcasm>
de_Selby 11y ago
Well, to nitpick slightly, the case here was a potential homicide, so it didn't really count as trivial. It should be an open and shut case though. As I read the article I found myself getting angrier and angrier at how it was playing out & how powerless I or anyone else was to do anything about it. Of course I was aware of the concept of plea bargaining, but I had no idea such an overwhelming majority of cases are settled that way. Like you suggest, there should probably be some court where clear cut cases like this are heard so they are dealt with quickly and efficiently. I'm not from the US so I'm but sure if such a concept already exists and it's just the magnitude of the potential crime here that's the obstacle?
pjc50 11y ago
The story avoids mentioning the ethnicity of the accused in this case, but the US system's brutality cannot be disentangled from its racism. I'd be very surprised if this kind of treatment was given to the average white guy who hits someone with a car. But a nonwhite guy on a motorbike? Much more plausible.
- Fede_V 11y ago
  I agree with the second part completely, but the story did mention the ethnicity of the accused.
- coldtea 11y ago
  He seemed to be from "white trash" origins from the description. Which for the system is as good as black or mexican.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  >I'd be very surprised if this kind of treatment // That's just blunt discrimination unless it's based on data/stats you trust. Basically what you appear to be using the "I'd be surprised" phrase to avoid really saying is that 'white people are racists and so the system, which they control, must be tailored to let them off more cheaply'; that's fine with strong trustworthy data IMO, without you're just being racist.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Racial disparity in the system is like global warming: there's lots of evidence which you have to work hard not to see. You could start with, eg http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3499&context=flr http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=349... and its references and footnotes. Footnote 4 contains the surprising sentence: "Very few whites were charged with crimes in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I was a public defender for twelve years and carried a full caseload for six years. I represented only two white defendants during those years. The exper- iences of my colleagues were very similar"
littletimmy 11y ago
The United States is a capitalist country. If you don't have capital, you're screwed.
coldtea 11y ago
>and another jail spot would be free D.A's are making their name for political reasons by number of convictions. And judges can even be making money off of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

randomname2 11y ago

At least he got a trial. /sarc

randomname2 11y ago
Just to put this into context, this is of course a terrible injustice, but even worse was Kalief Browder, the teen who killed himself after being imprisoned in Rikers for three years without a trial. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

given 11y ago

I guess the suspects should not go to the same place as the convicts. So prisons only for convicts and "safekeeping places" (which are not allowed to be near a prison) for the suspects. To treat suspects like criminals is not right. You and me could end up being a suspect without the slightest guilt in the matter.

asdfasdfsd 11y ago
If innocent until proven guilty, why treat them as guilty until their hearing. Clearly they are treating them as such, so where is my error?
- bitJericho 11y ago
  Because we're supposed to have speedy trials. The state should have the right to hold suspects until trial, because otherwise you'd be letting potential criminals run free (and run away).
  - joesb 11y ago
    > because otherwise you'd be letting potential criminals run free Well, if we want to keep the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" then potential criminals should be allowed to run free.
  - gtremper 11y ago
    Everyone is a potential criminal.
morganvachon 11y ago
> I guess the suspects should not go to the same place as the convicts. By and large, they don't. Suspects go to county or city jail, not prison, to wait for bail or their court date. Convicted persons go to prison. The issue is that a large, and growing, percentage of the pre-trial jail population is repeat offenders, people who have been to prison and therefore the jail environment begins to resemble the prison environment. In the county where I work, with a total population of nearly 1 million people, the jail houses about 2300 inmates on a regular basis. Those inmates are classified and housed based on a number of factors, including the type and severity of their current charges, their criminal history, direct observation by medical and psychological staff, age and infirmity, and so on. Still, even with this sensible approach to keeping the "hardcore" inmates away from those accused of minor crimes, occasionally someone who has never seen the inside of a jail before ends up in a cell or dorm with career criminals. There's no easy solution, but proper classification and staff education go a long way towards keeping pre-trial jails safer for the accused. As for the subject of this article, I can't help but wonder how high his bond was set for that particular charge, given that most bonding companies typically charge no more than 15% of the total bond amount. Even if his bond was $10,000 (which would be consistent with the charge here in Georgia, but of course NYC may be drastically different), the fee to a professional bondsman would be $1500, something his family and friends could scrape together. Even if his bond was set higher than that, he could have petitioned the judge for a reduced bond or even a ROR (released on his own recognizance) bond, given the non-violent nature of the offense and the fact he's never had a felony conviction. No, it sounds like a big part of the problem is apathy on the part of the public defender's office in NYC, coupled with district attorneys who care more about conviction rates than actual justice and judges who are nothing more than rubber stamp machines.

tdkl 11y ago

It's not "twisted" justice system. It's totalitarian. Using scare tactics like this is brainwashing the person in question to be in state in saying, feeling, showing something he wouldn't in the lack of these circumstances in a democratic country.

jimrandomh 11y ago

New York has a legal and constitutional obligation to hire enough judges, public defenders and court staff to provide speedy trials for all of the accused. "Speedy" is legally defined to mean six months. For some reason, they haven't done it, resulting in the crime against humanity that is Rikers Island. This is odd, because I can't imagine they even save money this way; imprisoning people is expensive.

vidarh 11y ago
New York defines this differently. From an article about Kalief Browder[1] who spent 3 years at Rikers before charges were just dropped (he subsequently committed suicide): > Many states have so-called speedy-trial laws, which require trials to start within a certain time frame. New York State’s version is slightly different, and is known as the “ready rule.” This rule stipulates that all felony cases (except homicides) must be ready for trial within six months of arraignment, or else the charges can be dismissed. In practice, however, this time limit is subject to technicalities. The clock stops for many reasons—for example, when defense attorneys submit motions before trial—so that the amount of time that is officially held to have elapsed can be wildly different from the amount of time that really has. In 2011, seventy-four per cent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months. > In order for a trial to start, both the defense attorney and the prosecutor have to declare that they are ready; the court clerk then searches for a trial judge who is free and transfers the case, and jury selection can begin. Not long after Browder was indicted, an assistant district attorney sent the court a “Notice of Readiness,” stating that “the People are ready for trial.” The case was put on the calendar for possible trial on December 10th, but it did not start that day. On January 28, 2011, Browder’s two-hundred-and-fifty-eighth day in jail, he was brought back to the courthouse once again. This time, the prosecutor said, “The People are not ready. We are requesting one week.” The next court date set by the judge—March 9th—was not one week away but six. ... and so it continued. He went to court 31 times. None of those times for the actual trial. Yet most of the 3 years he spent at Rikers, the "clock was stopped" and so it was not counted by the court as more than 6 months. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-...
- 11y ago

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Plea bargaining should not exist. It makes a mockery of justice, turns the legal system into a marketplace where you bid for relative degrees of guilt and are rewarded for "copping a plea", and occasionally snares the innocent. The war on drugs has clogged the system, but also our somewhat lawless and rudderless population since the early 1960s, when a generally orderly society gave way to a general contempt for authority. And the population has grown far faster than the number of courts to accommodate it. I think the only solution is to legalize drugs and build more courts to address the remaining cases more quickly and efficiently, without throwing due process out the window. Better education would help, too. And instill moral education in our children in the schools and at home. In the end, a more moral society will bring about a more moral justice system.

sneak 11y ago
A contempt for authority results in a healthy, vibrant society. You may recall what happened in the 30s in Germany when it was present to an insufficient degree, or in the US in Vietnam. There's a reason the 60s saw a backlash, and it wasn't disproportionate.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  30s Germany was a completely different situation; it was the Great Depression, combined with the humiliation of total defeat in WWI and onerous terms of surrender. Germans rallied behind a strong leader and were willing to forego liberty for the sake of national pride. The 60s backlash against Vietnam was largely because they began drafting college students. It was an outlet for restless, idle youth who were the most pampered, spoiled generation in history. And it did nothing to shorten the war; in fact it gave moral support to the Communists at a time when they were very frustrated, e.g. the Tet Offensive which was a military failure for the North.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Maybe if that contempt for authority had been more present when the US was first getting involved in Vietnam, that whole mess wouldn't have gotten as far as it did in the first place.

hughperkins 11y ago

1. It seems he really did kill someone with his bike. But it's not clear to me why this would be considered a homicide? Is this standard practice in USA? 2. For some reason, it seems common practice in USA to assume that if someone decided not to go to trial, that this means they admitted their guilt. This seems .... bizarre somehow. Perhaps 'pleading guilty' should be changed semantically to 'chose not to go to trial'? 3. It seems odd that if you are convicted of a felony that this means that you'll basically be unable to get a job for the rest of your life. How is this going to help rehabilitate people? Might as well just execute them. At least its quick. (At least, it is quick in China, which is where I live).

c4n4rd 11y ago
1. Someone died. Most DAs (district attorneys) sees this as a reason to charge people. They will charge even if it is not the case so that the shirt-storm that might come from the media does not fall into his hands - it is like district attorneys think: "It will not decide, let the jury decide and I have my hands clean: If the person was found guilty, it was the jury who did it. If not found guilty, it was also the jury - so do not blame me for the situation" 2. You really need to watch a documentary called "The Plea" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/) to get an insight on how FUCKED UP the "justice" in the USA is. 3. The media and politicians have much to blame here. If you are ever convicted of a crime (even like in the case of a plea bargain) you life is likely over because no one wants to take a chance by hiring a "convict" - Business do not want to take this kind of risk.
- revelation 11y ago
  Huh? No, the majority of people who kill others using a vehicle of sorts are not ever charged (certainly not in NY), not even given as much as a ticket. If you remain at the scene and are not drunk, you can drive tomorrow. (This applies even if your license is suspended or you were otherwise reckless.) Now, the mistake you can not make is to choose the wrong mode of transport in your killing. Apparently this kid used a motorcycle. Any other transport but the good ol' car is an out group; you drastically increase your chances of being charged by using it. (Not that I want to take the stance of this article that this is all "an accident"; too many reckless crashes are written off as "accidents". If you take a high-powered machine into the public, you should accept criminal responsibility regardless of your fault in a matter simply because of the excess risk you have brought into the equation.)

wampus 11y ago

A person is dead because of this man's inability to control a lethal force. There may be nuances to the case, but he isn't innocent, even by his own account of the facts. As a cyclist who has to constantly contend with aggressive motorists, unpredictable pedestrians and plenty of other douchebag cyclists, I'm relieved this guy is off the road for a couple of years. But that doesn't mean he should be exposed to any of the horrors we've come to associate with US prisons. Rape? Regular beatings? Relentless racism? How is this cruel and unusual punishment not a violation of constitutional rights?

mariodiana 11y ago
"[T]his man's inability to control a lethal force." Did I miss something in the article that you found?
coldtea 11y ago
>An person is dead because of this man's inability to control a lethal force. There may be nuances to the case, but he isn't innocent, even by his own account of the facts. (...) I'm relieved this guy is off the road for a couple of years. Are you kidding me? "Chris sustained a broken hip, broken collarbone and internal injuries, but the teenager was dead. Chris denied he’d been drinking, and a Breathalyzer confirmed it. He also said he hadn’t been speeding, which was borne out by eyewitnesses as well as a police test on the tire marks." How would you like such a jail experience, even without the horrors, for a mere accident? Especially one when some idiot jumped at you. You speak more "as a cyclist who has to constantly contend with aggressive motorists" than someone clearheaded who evaluated the case. And you know cyclists can do stupid things too like cut people off, turn unexpectedly etc, and cause accidents. In fact there are tons of "aggressive cyclists" who think traffic laws don't apply to them because they don't drive a car -- and kids who just want a thrill.
- wampus 11y ago
  The severity of his own injuries indicates that he might have been going too fast for the conditions (whether or not he was exceeding the speed limit, which nobody can confirm conclusively). In his version, "It was like he fell out of the sky," but that's a misleading comparison that paints him as entirely innocent. "The kid darted out from behind a bus," sounds more like a situation that required caution (was the bus pulled over to discharge passengers?). "Doesn’t he have any responsibility for what happened?" he says of the victim. Yes, he does, but the person who wields the most lethal power also bears the most responsibility. Unless a pedestrian intentionally and directly charged me or truly fell out of the sky, I would assume blame if I hit one while riding or driving.

jimworm 11y ago

It has been known for millennia that confessions obtained under torture are very effective at reducing the workload of the courts. So much so, that a billion-dollar industry can grow its own market at will with a minimum increase in judicial expenses. What's the next "disruption" in the industry? Automated guilt-finding? Mass surveillance, check. Self-running prisons? Automated jail management, check. Automated lawyers? Watson, check. The system is turning into a predator that seeks out the slow and weak as prey; unfortunately, unlike a predator in nature, it decreases the health of the entire herd. To naively take the predator analogy to the extreme, it would be more beneficial for a nation to randomly select poor people and summarily execute them than maintain a justice system that deals almost exclusively in injustice.

jensen123 11y ago

Many people seem to think that human rights abuses is something that only happens in dictatorships, and not democracies. I wonder, though, if you compare say the US with China, is China any worse? Or the US compared to the old monarchies in Europe, on a per capita basis?

vidarh 11y ago
China certainly imprisons a much smaller proportion of its population, so that's a good question. "Worse" probably depends on who you ask. China is decidedly un-free for everyone in that everyone knows that certain things puts you at risk, and so e.g. in terms of free speech China is clearly worse. But if you're sufficiently poor in the US, your odds of spending a substantial proportion of your life in prison is vastly higher than in China, and I frankly don't know if your chance of getting a reasonably fair trial in the US in that situation is all that much better than China. Personally, if I in some parallel universe found myself on a US jury (which I won't - I'n not US), I would vote to acquit in all but the most atrocious cases, as I would not in good conscience find it moral to contribute to subjecting anyone to the US prison system. But as we see in the article, in most cases, it's not up to a jury.

Asbostos 11y ago

How is a plea deal not duress? Imagine if a cop pointed a gun at you and said "I'll shoot you unless you confess". We wouldn't accept that confession but we do accept a prosecutor saying "you'll get the death penalty at trial unless you plead guilty now." Same goes for lesser sentences vs threats of physical violence.

jjoonathan 11y ago
By any reasonable definition of the term it is. Of course, it's the courts that get to define these things and you can bet that they exempt themselves.
sp332 11y ago
Because they can't directly give the person a death sentence. If you turn down the plea, you go to a regular trial where a jury determines if you're guilty and the judge & jury determine your sentence.
- hughperkins 11y ago
  Well, they do, after several years at Rikers ...
Someone 11y ago
I think the problem isn't just plea deals but the combination of plea deals with holding suspects for way longer than the law allows, and under inhumane circumstances to beat. If this guy had been let out of jail, still had his job and girlfriend, and didn't have to experience Rikers while he waited for his trial, giving him the option to choose between a certain thing and the somewhat gamble of a trial still could be called cruel, but I think it would be significantly less so. Surely, it would be more likely that a suspect will hear "You can get the death penalty unless you plead guilty now", even if the prosecutor says "you will".

joesmo 11y ago

Since clearly Rikers has over 400 violations of the 6th Amendment (since by no sane person's definition can over two years in jail be considered speedy), how about releasing these people on their own recognizance until trial?