4 ms·

If you can "just" convict people of anything no matter what, we probably have bigger problems. Not that I particularly agree with Thomas, but assuming that it'

If you can "just" convict people of anything no matter what, we probably have bigger problems. Not that I particularly agree with Thomas, but assuming that it's trivially easy to convict anyone you want of a criminal offense is quite a big leap. (And it doesn't just require a compliant judge -- people could always ask for jury trials).

a3n 9y ago
We do have bigger problems. > The Justice Department's report said Brockmeyer approved the creation of additional fees, "many of which are widely considered abusive and may be unlawful, including several that the City has repealed during the pendency of our investigation. These include a $50 fee charged each time a person has a pending municipal arrest warrant cleared." > Just about every branch of Ferguson government -- police, Municipal Court, City Hall -- participated in "unlawful" targeting of African-American residents for tickets and fines, the Justice Department concluded. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/ferguson-missouri-courts/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/ferguson-missouri-courts/in... It looks like it was trivially easy to come up with any scheme they wanted to collect money from people too vulnerable and poor to fight it. If the Michael Brown shooting hadn't happened, the area wouldn't have received the scrutiny it did, and my assumption is that the scheme would still be ongoing. I'm sure this happens elsewhere; the smaller the community and the more chummy the players, the easier it would be.
- aetherson 9y ago
  I'm sympathetic to the idea that we have structural racism in a lot of places, including the justice system. But trying to combat that by worrying about whether later-exonerated convicts get some of their fees back is like worrying about the amount of scarring caused by a decapitation. And this case was about people who had gone through entire non-trivial justice system processes for non-trivial crimes, were convicted, and later had those convictions overturned. It's not about fines and speeding tickets.
  - a3n 9y ago
    But it would be about those trivial things as it gets implemented down in the smaller communities. That's the point: if an opinion like Thomas' held in the large, it would make it easier to get away with trivial things in the small. It degrades justice, at the core and at the edges.
    - aetherson 9y ago
      But it wouldn't. Thomas' opinion is very strictly based on the idea that there was once a legal conviction, that was then overturned. That's not something that happens very much in the legal system, and it particularly doesn't happen very much for the small annoying offenses like traffic violations that you're talking about, because it's just not worth the time and effort to overturn them. He didn't say, "It's cool to fine someone absent a conviction, and then when or if they successfully avoid a conviction, do not give them back their money."
FireBeyond 9y ago
It happens a lot with parking and traffic offenses. "You will be assumed to be guilty and lose the right of appeal if you do not respond to this within x amount of time."
- aetherson 9y ago
  Sure. And, since you can't appeal, you couldn't get later exonerated anyway. This ruling has nothing to do with that.

a3n 9y ago

We do have bigger problems. > The Justice Department's report said Brockmeyer approved the creation of additional fees, "many of which are widely considered abusive and may be unlawful, including several that the City has repealed during the pendency of our investigation. These include a $50 fee charged each time a person has a pending municipal arrest warrant cleared." > Just about every branch of Ferguson government -- police, Municipal Court, City Hall -- participated in "unlawful" targeting of African-American residents for tickets and fines, the Justice Department concluded. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/ferguson-missouri-courts/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/ferguson-missouri-courts/in... It looks like it was trivially easy to come up with any scheme they wanted to collect money from people too vulnerable and poor to fight it. If the Michael Brown shooting hadn't happened, the area wouldn't have received the scrutiny it did, and my assumption is that the scheme would still be ongoing. I'm sure this happens elsewhere; the smaller the community and the more chummy the players, the easier it would be.

aetherson 9y ago
I'm sympathetic to the idea that we have structural racism in a lot of places, including the justice system. But trying to combat that by worrying about whether later-exonerated convicts get some of their fees back is like worrying about the amount of scarring caused by a decapitation. And this case was about people who had gone through entire non-trivial justice system processes for non-trivial crimes, were convicted, and later had those convictions overturned. It's not about fines and speeding tickets.
- a3n 9y ago
  But it would be about those trivial things as it gets implemented down in the smaller communities. That's the point: if an opinion like Thomas' held in the large, it would make it easier to get away with trivial things in the small. It degrades justice, at the core and at the edges.
  - aetherson 9y ago
    But it wouldn't. Thomas' opinion is very strictly based on the idea that there was once a legal conviction, that was then overturned. That's not something that happens very much in the legal system, and it particularly doesn't happen very much for the small annoying offenses like traffic violations that you're talking about, because it's just not worth the time and effort to overturn them. He didn't say, "It's cool to fine someone absent a conviction, and then when or if they successfully avoid a conviction, do not give them back their money."

FireBeyond 9y ago

It happens a lot with parking and traffic offenses. "You will be assumed to be guilty and lose the right of appeal if you do not respond to this within x amount of time."

aetherson 9y ago
Sure. And, since you can't appeal, you couldn't get later exonerated anyway. This ruling has nothing to do with that.