7 ms·

How to Prosecute Abusive Prosecutors

153 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

kbenson 11y ago
> It is absolutely essential to bring rogue law enforcement officers to justice, particularly in a post-Ferguson world in which violations of constitutional rights have come under intense scrutiny. That's an odd way to word that. It's essential not because there is more scrutiny, but because it's wrong to allow it to continue. Whether it's being looked at more often is a problem for those that are worried about their conduct, not those that are concerned that justice is not being done.
- cperciva 11y ago
  It's essential not because there is more scrutiny, but because it's wrong to allow it to continue. It's essential for both reasons. As you correctly point out, it's important to end abuses simply by virtue of the fact that they are abusive and illegal; but it is also important to end practices which bring the justice system into disrepute, since the very functioning of the justice system relies upon the trust which society places upon it. This is a case where both the facts and the public perception thereof are important.
  - nickff 11y ago
    So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? Your argument seems to presume that the 'justice system' is good, or that it needs to be kept around for some other reason.
    - cperciva 11y ago
      So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Not an end in itself, but I'd say it's a very important component in maintaining an ordered society. Whether you consider that to be a worthwhile end may depend on your political leanings; I'm a Canadian, and where the US constitution exhorts the "blessings of liberty", ours speaks of "peace, order, and good government".
      - nickff 11y ago
        My political leanings are skeptical; it seems to me that the objectives of the police and prosectors are (respectively) to preserve the police and the prosecutors. When crime increases, the police say they are underfunded and overworked, while prosecutors call for additional funding and powers. When crime goes down, they claim it is thanks to their intelligence and dilligence. Both groups are also known for avoiding being held responsible when they fail at their jobs (such as by shooting unarmed people who happen to also be naked, or convicting the innocent through fraudulent evidence).[1][2] Are the police and prosecutors really focused and achieving the maintenance of an ordered society, or are they just keeping their jobs? [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shooting/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shoot... [2] too many citations to put here
        cperciva 11y ago
        I never said that I thought we should protect every individual member of the justice system. Quite to the contrary, I think preserving and enhancing the public trust in the justice system requires that individuals who have acted abusively are not protected.
        nickff 11y ago
        My point was not that there have been individual failures, but that the 'justice system' is plagued by a lack of accountability, misaligned incentives, and entire organizations who do not feel any obligation to the citizenry.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - tbrownaw 11y ago
      So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? There needs to be a systematic and reasoned standard way for people to have redress of grievances, which does not take things to excess. Having this be handled by the government seems to be a reasonably good solution. Having people handle things themselves isn't reasoned or systematic or standardized and does tend to excess, and is bad for everyone. As tends to be demonstrated fairly clearly every time it happens. If the current system of having the government handle this collapses or loses people's trust -- assuming this isn't due to some better system being implemented -- it would only leave people to handle things however they feel, and would be rather harmful.
    - Frondo 11y ago
      You don't need to care, but if you're going to suggest that a country (or state or city or whatever) doesn't need a justice department, you'd do well to show us a country/state/city without one, and how well they're doing.
- cjhveal 11y ago
  I agree it's an odd wording. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, however, I might interpret it to mean that it's essential for continued public trust in law enforcement that rights violations are dealt due process, particularly when they are national spectacles.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Public trust in law enforcement should be preserved, especially when they are national spectacles? Why? Law enforcement agencies of the government are fascinating, but I do not see why they or any other arm of the government must be preserved; the citizens are what matter, not the government.
    - protomyth 11y ago
      The logic is that public trust needs to be preserved for cops to do their jobs. If they are national spectacles than they are not going to be able to do the job the citizens who pay for government expect. Its basically an alternate way of saying the police must be clean. Sadly, some politicians forget that in order to respect police we need to see them as non-corrupt. They just expect blind trust.
    - cjhveal 11y ago
      Public trust is essential for law enforcement to function efficiently. Trust in the legitimacy of government and other members of society is inversely correlated with crime and corruption. This is not to say that trust causes lower crime rates, but when agents of the government behave in ways that break trust and jeopardize the legitimacy of their station, the public is less willing to cooperate and more likely to operate outside of the system of law. Therefore, what is essential is that law enforcement act in ways that preserves trust, especially when the eyes of the nation are upon them. Trust and government behaviour form a feedback loop, such that if either one is maligned, it can disturb the stability of the entire system. I agree citizens are what matter, and that no government agency should be legitimized merely by its own existence. However, I do believe that the enforcement of the law leads to more optimal societal configurations than the Nash equilibrium. I'm not arguing for the preservation of a corrupt and self-serving government agency, I'm arguing that an institution which behaves in a manner that the public can trust will lead to greater utility for society.
- phyzome 11y ago
  When the justice system is visibly flawed, people are more likely to take out their anger and frustration in extralegal ways. This is often considered to be a bad thing.
Zigurd 11y ago
They should also be bonded so that their employers are not carrying the risk for torts they commit, and their immunity needs to be reduced. That way the thuggish ones will price themselves out of the business.
- sitkack 11y ago
  This is a great idea.
rayiner 11y ago
This Salon article has a bit more context: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/challenging_mississippis_depraved_justice_system_months_in_jail_with_no_indictment_and_no_lawyer http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/challenging_mississippis_dep... > As for having an attorney, yes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that defendants have a right to one but the debate about just when the right-to-counsel “attaches” continues to evolve. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2008 case, Rothgery v Gillespie, that the accused are entitled to an attorney at every “critical stage” of the process, it did not clearly define what constituted a “critical stage.” > Most places have interpreted this to mean at the initial bail hearing. But not Mississippi. It doesn't seem to be entirely a case of a renegade judge ignoring a well-settled Constitutional right.
- paulsutter 11y ago
  Do you honestly think that proceedings that could place a person in jail for a year could credibly be considered not a "critical stage"? What if it were for you personally? A year of your life? Would you calmly agree that it's not a well settled constitutional right and happily wait it out?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm not saying it's a reasonable interpretation. I'm pointing out that the article tries to make it seem like one judge is throwing the Constitution out the window, while it seems more a case of a state policy of trying to save a buck at the expense of the accused. There are a lot of shitty state governments trying to read stuff like Roe v. Wade out of existence. Singling out one particular judge who happened to make stupid comments in an interview won't change those policies. That has to happen at the state level.
    - wfo 11y ago
      Examples are important in a story. It's hard to get upset about a long critique discussing systemic legal policy. It's easy to get upset about a human face for evil in a position of great power and trust -- which is what this judge is. The issues are far worse than this one judge of course, they are widespread as the article states but it's very nice to have an example of the thought process and behavior of some of these people for those of who haven't encountered the criminal justice system before or aren't trained in law.
throwaway_pros 11y ago
The United States has gamified prosecution so that those with the most prosecutions can get elected as governors. So of course elected prosecutors will rabidly go after any easy case that comes their way, justice be damned. Law of unintended consequences at work again.
- IndianAstronaut 11y ago
  Probably going to continue if people keep electing people like this into office.
- elthran 11y ago
  UK here - are prosecutors really the only people who run for governor? If not, then is there a bias in the voting populace that means they are more likely to become governors?
hitekker 11y ago
> In a recent interview, the judge, who sits on the Mississippi State Circuit Court, was unapologetic about his regime of indefinite detention: “The criminal system is a system of criminals. Sure, their rights are violated.” But, he added, “That’s the hardship of the criminal system.” There is evil in all of us, I'm sure, and there those who allow themselves to be consumed by it. When I read these words, it's hard for me to see a person but instead, a monster.
- orib 11y ago
  There's one quote that I see people refer to quite often: > William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! > Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? > William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! > Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! -- A Man for All Seasons, 1966.
wtbob 11y ago
> particularly in a post-Ferguson world I completely agree that it's absolutely vital in a republic to hold the people's representatives accountable for their actions, but please don't refer to the death of Michael Brown as an example. He assaulted and battered a law-enforcement officer; he was shot and slain in self defense. His death was justified, and deserved.
- nyolfen 11y ago
  this narrative is far from proven: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-wi...
- aswanson 11y ago
  Yes. Wilson was so savagely battered by an inhumanly powerful wildebeest that he had no option other than to kill the savage. Even though the pictures look like he got hit with less than a bee sting....Just like the case today with the felon in Colorado armed with an ak47 after shooting 4 cops and 5 citizens...gets taken into custody alive. I guess that's less lethal than jaywalking though....
  - protomyth 11y ago
    You are spreading some serious lies on this one, wtbob is correct[1] according to the DoJ investigation of the shooting[2]. This is separated from the report[3] on the department's behavior which created a situation where a justified shooting became a firestorm. Continued use of the Ferguson shooting when there are other, blatant examples (read up on Albuquerque, NM) shows a disregard for the facts of the case. If talking about abuses by a department then Ferguson is a fine example, Officer Wilson is not. 1) "The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition." 2) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-release... 3) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-release...
mgalka 11y ago
Because most people have never experienced it, I don't think they realize how much of our legal system is at the discretion of judges and their own personal views / mood. The chart in this post shows the relationship between court outcomes and time since the judge last ate (tho it is from Israel). http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/11/justice-is-served-but-more-so-after-lunch-how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/#.Vlj-9l88KnM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/1... Scary.
will_brown 11y ago
Few simple suggestions: 1. Don't become outraged about the legal system based on news articles...keep in mind for each and every judge/prosecutor who does something wrong, there is a lawyer on the other side who has discovered the wrong and brought it to light 2. In general don't expect the government to fix systemic problems, and specifically, problems within the justice system (prosecutors, judges, public defenders) 3. If you are truely outraged (which should occur only when you have personal knowledge a wrong took place): A. File a bar complaint (a disbarred judge/prosecutor will never again have the chance to do wrong); B. Go on avvo/Martindale and publically rate them.
- jqm 11y ago
  "If you are truely outraged (which should occur only when you have personal knowledge a wrong took place)" Disagree completely. Public outrage at non-personal wrongs is very important for the wrongs to eventually be remedied. It's a good thing. Without this, wrongs can be committed and as long as the numbers are fairly low and the people powerless enough, no one does anything about it. That aside, people generally get too outraged at things they shouldn't and not outraged enough at things they should.
  - will_brown 11y ago
    pretty sure you are misreading what I wrote. I am not suggesting one should only be outraged when they are personally wronged. Rather one should only be outraged when they have personal knowledge a wrong actually occurred. Otherwise, could you give me a single example when it is ok to be outraged about some wrong when you don't know if that wrong even happened? Without an example, to me that is the equivalent of saying guilty until proved innocent, or shot first and ask questions later.
    - jqm 11y ago
      Fair point and maybe I read a little fast. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "personal knowledge". Is seeing it on TV personal knowledge or do you have to have witnessed it in person? As far as shoot first ask questions later... yep. This is exactly what seems to happen much of the time. The US is bad enough in this regard but from my limited understanding there are worse places. I see videos of outraged mobs in the street in the Mideast for instance based on rumors someone may have said something against Islam or in Africa burning suspected witches. To your point (as I understand it) I guess I have to agree.. it is far too easy to get people riled up on rumor and this causes problems.
tcj_phx 11y ago
I was recently arrested for the first time. My girlfriend had ended up in the behavioral health wing of the hospital emergency room when she decided to quit methadone cold-turkey, without any medical support for the withdrawal. When they wouldn't let her go after she'd come to her senses, I went to the courts and obtained an order that the hospital release her. The hospital staff, acting on incorrect legal advice from their staff attorney (who decided to not attend my court hearing), didn't want to hear about the court's order. I went to the area of my girlfriend's room. The windows are one-way mirrors, but she saw me and started tapping gleefully. I showed her the court order, and did a little dance while waiting for the police to arrive. Then the entire security staff showed up to deal with me. The "old man" security guard freaked out when I took out my camera-phone to take selfies to document the situation, and tried to remove my phone from my hands. I backed away while trying to switch my phone to video mode... The wanna-be-cop escalated the fight. Three or four of them wrestled me to the ground while trying to remove my phone from my hands. Eventually I was over-powered and handcuffed. The security guards finally managed to pry my phone from my handcuffed hands. It dropped to the concrete a few feet away, and I got a good view of a boot stomping down to break the screen. The police officer I'd called for showed up shortly thereafter, but it was six hospital security guards vs. me. The police officer and his superior called the superior court to verify that the case number on my court order was genuine, but it didn't matter. My arresting officer was almost apologetic for taking their side. At the booking area, the officer took pictures of my scuffs and bruises, and of my phone's broken screen (apparently this is much more than is done for most who are arrested). As I was taking my concrete nap, I thought to contact a facebook-friend who went to Harvard Law School & ask him if he had anyone to recommend. I was released on my own recognizance after spending the night in the city jail's holding cell. The next day I dropped $1000 on a retainer, which isn't much lawyer-time at all, but it's all I had. He's been very helpful in helping me navigate the legal system. When I got the police report a month later, I learned that the security guard told the police that I'd dropped my phone and hit him 3 times when he went to retrieve it. My video is quite brief, but strongly suggests that the security guard was not at all truthful with his statements that got me arrested for assault. The next court date was a pretrial conference, about 3 weeks later. The city prosecutor offered a "disorderly conduct" plea. I signed up for a public defender, who I met after another month. He used to work for that hospital, a long time ago. He said something that was informative, but which greatly irritated me, so I borrowed a few thousand dollars from family for a private attorney. This is going to take a while. It is very hard to protect people from the system. If you ever find yourself getting caught up in something where the police might get involved, remember that video is much more valuable than photos... (There was a recent story about someone who was vindicated by photos/videos which were automatically-uploaded from his phone which went missing after an police altercation).
twblahblah 11y ago
The judicial branch is corruption and distortion all the way down. And, it's not limited to the poor and minorities. I see the fiefdoms and bastardization in even the wealthiest of areas. It's one reason that I'll be voting for Trump in 2016. I'm a liberal; he's the most opposite of everything that I believe in. But, he's also going to be the one to take the whole system down, one way or another. When the OS doesn't respond to a signal, time for a hard reboot.
- eru 11y ago
  You could try voting with your feet.
- discardorama 11y ago
  > When the OS doesn't respond to a signal, time for a hard reboot. Or, how to burn a house down to kill a spider. Listen: if he's the most opposite of everything you believe in, voting for him is the stupidest idea you could have. Trump won't bring about much change; he's benefited from The System all his life! How many times has he declared bankruptcy? The best chance for real change, which doesn't involve torching the house, is Bernie Sanders.
- Quinner 11y ago
  I'm all for bringing down the government, but I have to believe there's a better way to do that than Donald Trump.
discardorama 11y ago
Nonetheless, advocates across the country continue to expose judges who unlawfully deprive defendants of lawyers or throw people in jail simply because they are too poor to pay small amounts of money. Is it possible to figure out, from court proceedings, when such a thing happens? I'm wondering if a "search engine" could be built, that trawls PACER reports and digs up cases where poor people are being sent to jail for small amounts of money. I'd be willing to chip in a little bit of money into a Kiva-style pool, from which the poor can tap the money and repay it later.
- pavornyoh 11y ago
  This sounds like a neat start-up idea..
- licoricetic 11y ago
  http://brooklynbailfund.org http://brooklynbailfund.org
  - discardorama 11y ago
    Thanks, that sounds very interesting. I wonder if we can automate some of that and do it nationwide?
vinceguidry 11y ago
Really excited to see how this develops. My main objection to criminal charges for abusive prosecutors is that bringing criminal charges against someone for doing their job has always struck me as being one step away from mob justice. I know I would never take a job where part of what I'm being paid for is running a risk of criminal prosecution. You just never know where the political winds are blowing at any given time. You can hedge against a risk of civil litigation, but not against criminal prosecution, nobody in their right mind should go anywhere near that shit unless they absolutely have to. I personally wouldn't mind rolling the dice on a world where there's no prosecutors because nobody will take the job and therefore no criminal justice system, but perhaps that's not the best solution here. But I do believe solving this would be an important victory for rule of law, giving wrongfully-prosecuted citizens a viable legal path for redress of grievance. Just off the top of my head, I would say that the worst penalty anybody should have for not doing their job properly is to lose that job, and that the system should be set up to properly train them and to absorb the costs of someone screwing up. Any other kind of work environment is abusive. So limiting liability to civil damages paid out by the government in malicious prosecution cases makes sense to me. Much as I want to clap these assholes in irons and make them serve alongside the people they wrongfully convicted, I don't think that's objectively the right move here.
- dietrichepp 11y ago
  I understand your worries about mob justice, but I think they are misplaced. Ordinarily, mens rea is necessary for any kind of criminal liability. Mens rea comes in a bunch of different flavors, and different crimes are committed depending on the flavor. For example, if you kill someone, it is murder if you purposefully killed them, but could be manslaughter if you were merely reckless. So, you can prosecute a prosecutor who knowingly withholds forensic evidence, and the prosecutor next door who is reckless and throws evidence out will just lose his job. You even have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor was knowingly withholding forensic evidence. That is how criminal law ordinarily works.
ommunist 11y ago
How else will you maintain incarceration rate, so necessary for American economics. Enslaving is such a good tradition of the US no one should easily abolish.
p4wnc6 11y ago
While the issue in this article is certainly important, it is frustrating for me to hear about it because I am currently dealing with the opposite situation: small-town local politics are being used by a local prosecutor to justify reducing charges / pursuing less-aggressive sentences in a case that involves the biological father of my nephew being charged with a high number of counts of a very serious and child-endangering crime. The father (the one who is charged) is well-connected politically in town and has a long-standing family history, whereas my sister's family has not lived in the area as long. The father has "good buddies" in the sheriff's office, and has even pulled strings to get free or nearly free legal representation, while my sister and I are struggling to afford astronomical costs. In the civil parenting time case that resulted from this, virtually any time there is an issue that could go either way, we get stuck paying for it. For example, if the criminal case itself creates a date conflict that requires a civil hearing to be rescheduled, the father and his attorney will push the issue as far as they can, unto the point where we just have to pay our attorney to write up a full motion for continuance, when it's not our issue causing the rescheduling or anything. So far, the judges and prosecutors have gone far, far out of their way to avoid placing strict penalties or punishments on this person, even so much so that it becomes the victim's (my sister's) financial burden just to see that minimal justice is preserved and that a somewhat morally congruent result is achieved. So it bugs me that people want to jump on a bandwagon of counter-intuitive support for the side of those who are charged or accused -- there are many places where people go out of their way to be lenient towards people who truly do deserve more severe penalties, and this is often at the expense of regular citizens who have done nothing wrong.

153 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

> It is absolutely essential to bring rogue law enforcement officers to justice, particularly in a post-Ferguson world in which violations of constitutional rights have come under intense scrutiny. That's an odd way to word that. It's essential not because there is more scrutiny, but because it's wrong to allow it to continue. Whether it's being looked at more often is a problem for those that are worried about their conduct, not those that are concerned that justice is not being done.

cperciva 11y ago
It's essential not because there is more scrutiny, but because it's wrong to allow it to continue. It's essential for both reasons. As you correctly point out, it's important to end abuses simply by virtue of the fact that they are abusive and illegal; but it is also important to end practices which bring the justice system into disrepute, since the very functioning of the justice system relies upon the trust which society places upon it. This is a case where both the facts and the public perception thereof are important.
- nickff 11y ago
  So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? Your argument seems to presume that the 'justice system' is good, or that it needs to be kept around for some other reason.
  - cperciva 11y ago
    So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Not an end in itself, but I'd say it's a very important component in maintaining an ordered society. Whether you consider that to be a worthwhile end may depend on your political leanings; I'm a Canadian, and where the US constitution exhorts the "blessings of liberty", ours speaks of "peace, order, and good government".
    - nickff 11y ago
      My political leanings are skeptical; it seems to me that the objectives of the police and prosectors are (respectively) to preserve the police and the prosecutors. When crime increases, the police say they are underfunded and overworked, while prosecutors call for additional funding and powers. When crime goes down, they claim it is thanks to their intelligence and dilligence. Both groups are also known for avoiding being held responsible when they fail at their jobs (such as by shooting unarmed people who happen to also be naked, or convicting the innocent through fraudulent evidence).[1][2] Are the police and prosecutors really focused and achieving the maintenance of an ordered society, or are they just keeping their jobs? [1] http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shooting/ http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/georgia-officer-fatal-shoot... [2] too many citations to put here
      - cperciva 11y ago
        I never said that I thought we should protect every individual member of the justice system. Quite to the contrary, I think preserving and enhancing the public trust in the justice system requires that individuals who have acted abusively are not protected.
        nickff 11y ago
        My point was not that there have been individual failures, but that the 'justice system' is plagued by a lack of accountability, misaligned incentives, and entire organizations who do not feel any obligation to the citizenry.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - tbrownaw 11y ago
    So maintaining the 'justice system' is an ends in itself? Why should I care whether or not the government has a particular department? There needs to be a systematic and reasoned standard way for people to have redress of grievances, which does not take things to excess. Having this be handled by the government seems to be a reasonably good solution. Having people handle things themselves isn't reasoned or systematic or standardized and does tend to excess, and is bad for everyone. As tends to be demonstrated fairly clearly every time it happens. If the current system of having the government handle this collapses or loses people's trust -- assuming this isn't due to some better system being implemented -- it would only leave people to handle things however they feel, and would be rather harmful.
  - Frondo 11y ago
    You don't need to care, but if you're going to suggest that a country (or state or city or whatever) doesn't need a justice department, you'd do well to show us a country/state/city without one, and how well they're doing.
cjhveal 11y ago
I agree it's an odd wording. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt, however, I might interpret it to mean that it's essential for continued public trust in law enforcement that rights violations are dealt due process, particularly when they are national spectacles.
- nickff 11y ago
  Public trust in law enforcement should be preserved, especially when they are national spectacles? Why? Law enforcement agencies of the government are fascinating, but I do not see why they or any other arm of the government must be preserved; the citizens are what matter, not the government.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    The logic is that public trust needs to be preserved for cops to do their jobs. If they are national spectacles than they are not going to be able to do the job the citizens who pay for government expect. Its basically an alternate way of saying the police must be clean. Sadly, some politicians forget that in order to respect police we need to see them as non-corrupt. They just expect blind trust.
  - cjhveal 11y ago
    Public trust is essential for law enforcement to function efficiently. Trust in the legitimacy of government and other members of society is inversely correlated with crime and corruption. This is not to say that trust causes lower crime rates, but when agents of the government behave in ways that break trust and jeopardize the legitimacy of their station, the public is less willing to cooperate and more likely to operate outside of the system of law. Therefore, what is essential is that law enforcement act in ways that preserves trust, especially when the eyes of the nation are upon them. Trust and government behaviour form a feedback loop, such that if either one is maligned, it can disturb the stability of the entire system. I agree citizens are what matter, and that no government agency should be legitimized merely by its own existence. However, I do believe that the enforcement of the law leads to more optimal societal configurations than the Nash equilibrium. I'm not arguing for the preservation of a corrupt and self-serving government agency, I'm arguing that an institution which behaves in a manner that the public can trust will lead to greater utility for society.
phyzome 11y ago
When the justice system is visibly flawed, people are more likely to take out their anger and frustration in extralegal ways. This is often considered to be a bad thing.

Zigurd 11y ago

They should also be bonded so that their employers are not carrying the risk for torts they commit, and their immunity needs to be reduced. That way the thuggish ones will price themselves out of the business.

sitkack 11y ago
This is a great idea.

rayiner 11y ago

This Salon article has a bit more context: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/challenging_mississippis_depraved_justice_system_months_in_jail_with_no_indictment_and_no_lawyer http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/challenging_mississippis_dep... > As for having an attorney, yes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1963 that defendants have a right to one but the debate about just when the right-to-counsel “attaches” continues to evolve. While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2008 case, Rothgery v Gillespie, that the accused are entitled to an attorney at every “critical stage” of the process, it did not clearly define what constituted a “critical stage.” > Most places have interpreted this to mean at the initial bail hearing. But not Mississippi. It doesn't seem to be entirely a case of a renegade judge ignoring a well-settled Constitutional right.

paulsutter 11y ago
Do you honestly think that proceedings that could place a person in jail for a year could credibly be considered not a "critical stage"? What if it were for you personally? A year of your life? Would you calmly agree that it's not a well settled constitutional right and happily wait it out?
- rayiner 11y ago
  I'm not saying it's a reasonable interpretation. I'm pointing out that the article tries to make it seem like one judge is throwing the Constitution out the window, while it seems more a case of a state policy of trying to save a buck at the expense of the accused. There are a lot of shitty state governments trying to read stuff like Roe v. Wade out of existence. Singling out one particular judge who happened to make stupid comments in an interview won't change those policies. That has to happen at the state level.
  - wfo 11y ago
    Examples are important in a story. It's hard to get upset about a long critique discussing systemic legal policy. It's easy to get upset about a human face for evil in a position of great power and trust -- which is what this judge is. The issues are far worse than this one judge of course, they are widespread as the article states but it's very nice to have an example of the thought process and behavior of some of these people for those of who haven't encountered the criminal justice system before or aren't trained in law.

throwaway_pros 11y ago

The United States has gamified prosecution so that those with the most prosecutions can get elected as governors. So of course elected prosecutors will rabidly go after any easy case that comes their way, justice be damned. Law of unintended consequences at work again.

IndianAstronaut 11y ago
Probably going to continue if people keep electing people like this into office.
elthran 11y ago
UK here - are prosecutors really the only people who run for governor? If not, then is there a bias in the voting populace that means they are more likely to become governors?

hitekker 11y ago

> In a recent interview, the judge, who sits on the Mississippi State Circuit Court, was unapologetic about his regime of indefinite detention: “The criminal system is a system of criminals. Sure, their rights are violated.” But, he added, “That’s the hardship of the criminal system.” There is evil in all of us, I'm sure, and there those who allow themselves to be consumed by it. When I read these words, it's hard for me to see a person but instead, a monster.

orib 11y ago
There's one quote that I see people refer to quite often: > William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! > Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? > William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! > Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! -- A Man for All Seasons, 1966.

wtbob 11y ago

> particularly in a post-Ferguson world I completely agree that it's absolutely vital in a republic to hold the people's representatives accountable for their actions, but please don't refer to the death of Michael Brown as an example. He assaulted and battered a law-enforcement officer; he was shot and slain in self defense. His death was justified, and deserved.

nyolfen 11y ago
this narrative is far from proven: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-witness-40-496236 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/unmasking-Ferguson-wi...
aswanson 11y ago
Yes. Wilson was so savagely battered by an inhumanly powerful wildebeest that he had no option other than to kill the savage. Even though the pictures look like he got hit with less than a bee sting....Just like the case today with the felon in Colorado armed with an ak47 after shooting 4 cops and 5 citizens...gets taken into custody alive. I guess that's less lethal than jaywalking though....
- protomyth 11y ago
  You are spreading some serious lies on this one, wtbob is correct[1] according to the DoJ investigation of the shooting[2]. This is separated from the report[3] on the department's behavior which created a situation where a justified shooting became a firestorm. Continued use of the Ferguson shooting when there are other, blatant examples (read up on Albuquerque, NM) shows a disregard for the facts of the case. If talking about abuses by a department then Ferguson is a fine example, Officer Wilson is not. 1) "The evidence, when viewed as a whole, does not support the conclusion that Wilson’s uses of deadly force were “objectively unreasonable” under the Supreme Court’s definition." 2) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/doj_report_on_shooting_of_michael_brown_1.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-release... 3) http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-release...

mgalka 11y ago

Because most people have never experienced it, I don't think they realize how much of our legal system is at the discretion of judges and their own personal views / mood. The chart in this post shows the relationship between court outcomes and time since the judge last ate (tho it is from Israel). http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/11/justice-is-served-but-more-so-after-lunch-how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/#.Vlj-9l88KnM http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/1... Scary.

will_brown 11y ago

Few simple suggestions: 1. Don't become outraged about the legal system based on news articles...keep in mind for each and every judge/prosecutor who does something wrong, there is a lawyer on the other side who has discovered the wrong and brought it to light 2. In general don't expect the government to fix systemic problems, and specifically, problems within the justice system (prosecutors, judges, public defenders) 3. If you are truely outraged (which should occur only when you have personal knowledge a wrong took place): A. File a bar complaint (a disbarred judge/prosecutor will never again have the chance to do wrong); B. Go on avvo/Martindale and publically rate them.

jqm 11y ago
"If you are truely outraged (which should occur only when you have personal knowledge a wrong took place)" Disagree completely. Public outrage at non-personal wrongs is very important for the wrongs to eventually be remedied. It's a good thing. Without this, wrongs can be committed and as long as the numbers are fairly low and the people powerless enough, no one does anything about it. That aside, people generally get too outraged at things they shouldn't and not outraged enough at things they should.
- will_brown 11y ago
  pretty sure you are misreading what I wrote. I am not suggesting one should only be outraged when they are personally wronged. Rather one should only be outraged when they have personal knowledge a wrong actually occurred. Otherwise, could you give me a single example when it is ok to be outraged about some wrong when you don't know if that wrong even happened? Without an example, to me that is the equivalent of saying guilty until proved innocent, or shot first and ask questions later.
  - jqm 11y ago
    Fair point and maybe I read a little fast. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "personal knowledge". Is seeing it on TV personal knowledge or do you have to have witnessed it in person? As far as shoot first ask questions later... yep. This is exactly what seems to happen much of the time. The US is bad enough in this regard but from my limited understanding there are worse places. I see videos of outraged mobs in the street in the Mideast for instance based on rumors someone may have said something against Islam or in Africa burning suspected witches. To your point (as I understand it) I guess I have to agree.. it is far too easy to get people riled up on rumor and this causes problems.

tcj_phx 11y ago

I was recently arrested for the first time. My girlfriend had ended up in the behavioral health wing of the hospital emergency room when she decided to quit methadone cold-turkey, without any medical support for the withdrawal. When they wouldn't let her go after she'd come to her senses, I went to the courts and obtained an order that the hospital release her. The hospital staff, acting on incorrect legal advice from their staff attorney (who decided to not attend my court hearing), didn't want to hear about the court's order. I went to the area of my girlfriend's room. The windows are one-way mirrors, but she saw me and started tapping gleefully. I showed her the court order, and did a little dance while waiting for the police to arrive. Then the entire security staff showed up to deal with me. The "old man" security guard freaked out when I took out my camera-phone to take selfies to document the situation, and tried to remove my phone from my hands. I backed away while trying to switch my phone to video mode... The wanna-be-cop escalated the fight. Three or four of them wrestled me to the ground while trying to remove my phone from my hands. Eventually I was over-powered and handcuffed. The security guards finally managed to pry my phone from my handcuffed hands. It dropped to the concrete a few feet away, and I got a good view of a boot stomping down to break the screen. The police officer I'd called for showed up shortly thereafter, but it was six hospital security guards vs. me. The police officer and his superior called the superior court to verify that the case number on my court order was genuine, but it didn't matter. My arresting officer was almost apologetic for taking their side. At the booking area, the officer took pictures of my scuffs and bruises, and of my phone's broken screen (apparently this is much more than is done for most who are arrested). As I was taking my concrete nap, I thought to contact a facebook-friend who went to Harvard Law School & ask him if he had anyone to recommend. I was released on my own recognizance after spending the night in the city jail's holding cell. The next day I dropped $1000 on a retainer, which isn't much lawyer-time at all, but it's all I had. He's been very helpful in helping me navigate the legal system. When I got the police report a month later, I learned that the security guard told the police that I'd dropped my phone and hit him 3 times when he went to retrieve it. My video is quite brief, but strongly suggests that the security guard was not at all truthful with his statements that got me arrested for assault. The next court date was a pretrial conference, about 3 weeks later. The city prosecutor offered a "disorderly conduct" plea. I signed up for a public defender, who I met after another month. He used to work for that hospital, a long time ago. He said something that was informative, but which greatly irritated me, so I borrowed a few thousand dollars from family for a private attorney. This is going to take a while. It is very hard to protect people from the system. If you ever find yourself getting caught up in something where the police might get involved, remember that video is much more valuable than photos... (There was a recent story about someone who was vindicated by photos/videos which were automatically-uploaded from his phone which went missing after an police altercation).

twblahblah 11y ago

The judicial branch is corruption and distortion all the way down. And, it's not limited to the poor and minorities. I see the fiefdoms and bastardization in even the wealthiest of areas. It's one reason that I'll be voting for Trump in 2016. I'm a liberal; he's the most opposite of everything that I believe in. But, he's also going to be the one to take the whole system down, one way or another. When the OS doesn't respond to a signal, time for a hard reboot.

eru 11y ago
You could try voting with your feet.
discardorama 11y ago
> When the OS doesn't respond to a signal, time for a hard reboot. Or, how to burn a house down to kill a spider. Listen: if he's the most opposite of everything you believe in, voting for him is the stupidest idea you could have. Trump won't bring about much change; he's benefited from The System all his life! How many times has he declared bankruptcy? The best chance for real change, which doesn't involve torching the house, is Bernie Sanders.
Quinner 11y ago
I'm all for bringing down the government, but I have to believe there's a better way to do that than Donald Trump.

discardorama 11y ago

Nonetheless, advocates across the country continue to expose judges who unlawfully deprive defendants of lawyers or throw people in jail simply because they are too poor to pay small amounts of money. Is it possible to figure out, from court proceedings, when such a thing happens? I'm wondering if a "search engine" could be built, that trawls PACER reports and digs up cases where poor people are being sent to jail for small amounts of money. I'd be willing to chip in a little bit of money into a Kiva-style pool, from which the poor can tap the money and repay it later.

pavornyoh 11y ago
This sounds like a neat start-up idea..
licoricetic 11y ago
http://brooklynbailfund.org http://brooklynbailfund.org
- discardorama 11y ago
  Thanks, that sounds very interesting. I wonder if we can automate some of that and do it nationwide?

vinceguidry 11y ago

Really excited to see how this develops. My main objection to criminal charges for abusive prosecutors is that bringing criminal charges against someone for doing their job has always struck me as being one step away from mob justice. I know I would never take a job where part of what I'm being paid for is running a risk of criminal prosecution. You just never know where the political winds are blowing at any given time. You can hedge against a risk of civil litigation, but not against criminal prosecution, nobody in their right mind should go anywhere near that shit unless they absolutely have to. I personally wouldn't mind rolling the dice on a world where there's no prosecutors because nobody will take the job and therefore no criminal justice system, but perhaps that's not the best solution here. But I do believe solving this would be an important victory for rule of law, giving wrongfully-prosecuted citizens a viable legal path for redress of grievance. Just off the top of my head, I would say that the worst penalty anybody should have for not doing their job properly is to lose that job, and that the system should be set up to properly train them and to absorb the costs of someone screwing up. Any other kind of work environment is abusive. So limiting liability to civil damages paid out by the government in malicious prosecution cases makes sense to me. Much as I want to clap these assholes in irons and make them serve alongside the people they wrongfully convicted, I don't think that's objectively the right move here.

dietrichepp 11y ago
I understand your worries about mob justice, but I think they are misplaced. Ordinarily, mens rea is necessary for any kind of criminal liability. Mens rea comes in a bunch of different flavors, and different crimes are committed depending on the flavor. For example, if you kill someone, it is murder if you purposefully killed them, but could be manslaughter if you were merely reckless. So, you can prosecute a prosecutor who knowingly withholds forensic evidence, and the prosecutor next door who is reckless and throws evidence out will just lose his job. You even have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutor was knowingly withholding forensic evidence. That is how criminal law ordinarily works.

ommunist 11y ago

How else will you maintain incarceration rate, so necessary for American economics. Enslaving is such a good tradition of the US no one should easily abolish.

p4wnc6 11y ago

While the issue in this article is certainly important, it is frustrating for me to hear about it because I am currently dealing with the opposite situation: small-town local politics are being used by a local prosecutor to justify reducing charges / pursuing less-aggressive sentences in a case that involves the biological father of my nephew being charged with a high number of counts of a very serious and child-endangering crime. The father (the one who is charged) is well-connected politically in town and has a long-standing family history, whereas my sister's family has not lived in the area as long. The father has "good buddies" in the sheriff's office, and has even pulled strings to get free or nearly free legal representation, while my sister and I are struggling to afford astronomical costs. In the civil parenting time case that resulted from this, virtually any time there is an issue that could go either way, we get stuck paying for it. For example, if the criminal case itself creates a date conflict that requires a civil hearing to be rescheduled, the father and his attorney will push the issue as far as they can, unto the point where we just have to pay our attorney to write up a full motion for continuance, when it's not our issue causing the rescheduling or anything. So far, the judges and prosecutors have gone far, far out of their way to avoid placing strict penalties or punishments on this person, even so much so that it becomes the victim's (my sister's) financial burden just to see that minimal justice is preserved and that a somewhat morally congruent result is achieved. So it bugs me that people want to jump on a bandwagon of counter-intuitive support for the side of those who are charged or accused -- there are many places where people go out of their way to be lenient towards people who truly do deserve more severe penalties, and this is often at the expense of regular citizens who have done nothing wrong.