7 ms·

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due

by fsloth 11y ago

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?

bitJericho 11y ago
Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.
ithkuil 11y ago
> [...] After 414 days in the St Clair County jail, he went home. and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1]. Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation to deserve this treatment? [1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-charges-dropped-in-east-st-louis-case/article_1ace22ff-c799-5990-98c2-bc468d227915.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...
- toast0 11y ago
  414 days in jail awaiting trial doesn't sound like a speedy trial to me, as required (but not defined) in the 6th amendment, either.
  - drjesusphd 11y ago
    Defendants are often advised to waive their right to a speedy trial to better prepare a case.
coldtea 11y ago
No. It's probably worse. E.g. you can get life in prison for 3 "strikes", even if it's for something like stealing cookies. You know, the thing Europe derided back in 19th century with Jean Valjean. A 15 year old can be sentenced to death (and has). A man that's later proven innocent can rot in jail for decades without much recourse. The 5% of the world's population have 25% of the world's prisoners. ...
- tombrossman 11y ago
  This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating. I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification. We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict. The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.
  - yungudu 11y ago
    But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike. Sounds like a douchebag.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? Well, I want him alright. There are tons of examples of people who have done such things, including repeatedly, that include some great artists, writers, inventors, businessmen, etc. And of course tons of people who went to to change their ways, become great parents, etc. We could lose some people thinking like your statement above from society, though.
specialist 11y ago
Article acknowledges the power of local prosecutors, but not the perverse incentives and lack of counterweights leading to high conviction rates.
pjc50 11y ago
Racism and wildly exaggerated fear of crime caused people to effectively demand a justice system that worked like this. So long as it only ruins black lives and those of white people who are easy to dismiss as feckless, the rest of the voters are happy with it.
- talmand 11y ago
  You're not going back far enough. I would say that throughout much of history there has been similar problems with all justice systems.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Policing in the modern sense only dates back to 1829. "Much of history" covers a huge sweep of possibilities.
    - talmand 11y ago
      I'm not talking about policing, I'm speaking of justice systems which do go back quite a ways into history.
Nutmog 11y ago
If it wasn't the US, it would be classified as a human rights violation. This is worse than imprisoning or torturing political prisoners because of the scale of it. At least political prisoners knew they were breaking the law. They're also usually fewer in number except during revolutions/etc.
mason240 11y ago
No, it's a moral panic.
xlm1717 11y ago
Not just the justice system, but society in general. If you're arbitrarily targeted by the internet outrage mob for doing or saying something they don't like, your life can be ruined without a fair due process, and the internet does not forgive even if you're innocent.

by fsloth 11y ago

bitJericho 11y ago

Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.

ithkuil 11y ago

> [...] After 414 days in the St Clair County jail, he went home. and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1]. Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation to deserve this treatment? [1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-charges-dropped-in-east-st-louis-case/article_1ace22ff-c799-5990-98c2-bc468d227915.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...

toast0 11y ago
414 days in jail awaiting trial doesn't sound like a speedy trial to me, as required (but not defined) in the 6th amendment, either.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  Defendants are often advised to waive their right to a speedy trial to better prepare a case.

coldtea 11y ago

No. It's probably worse. E.g. you can get life in prison for 3 "strikes", even if it's for something like stealing cookies. You know, the thing Europe derided back in 19th century with Jean Valjean. A 15 year old can be sentenced to death (and has). A man that's later proven innocent can rot in jail for decades without much recourse. The 5% of the world's population have 25% of the world's prisoners. ...

tombrossman 11y ago
This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating. I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification. We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict. The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.
- yungudu 11y ago
  But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike. Sounds like a douchebag.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? Well, I want him alright. There are tons of examples of people who have done such things, including repeatedly, that include some great artists, writers, inventors, businessmen, etc. And of course tons of people who went to to change their ways, become great parents, etc. We could lose some people thinking like your statement above from society, though.

specialist 11y ago

Article acknowledges the power of local prosecutors, but not the perverse incentives and lack of counterweights leading to high conviction rates.

pjc50 11y ago

Racism and wildly exaggerated fear of crime caused people to effectively demand a justice system that worked like this. So long as it only ruins black lives and those of white people who are easy to dismiss as feckless, the rest of the voters are happy with it.

talmand 11y ago
You're not going back far enough. I would say that throughout much of history there has been similar problems with all justice systems.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Policing in the modern sense only dates back to 1829. "Much of history" covers a huge sweep of possibilities.
  - talmand 11y ago
    I'm not talking about policing, I'm speaking of justice systems which do go back quite a ways into history.

Nutmog 11y ago

If it wasn't the US, it would be classified as a human rights violation. This is worse than imprisoning or torturing political prisoners because of the scale of it. At least political prisoners knew they were breaking the law. They're also usually fewer in number except during revolutions/etc.

mason240 11y ago

No, it's a moral panic.

xlm1717 11y ago

Not just the justice system, but society in general. If you're arbitrarily targeted by the internet outrage mob for doing or saying something they don't like, your life can be ruined without a fair due process, and the internet does not forgive even if you're innocent.