5 ms·

the issue is its impossible for the state to afford to provide a jury trial to everyone that is currently eligible. A trial has >5 paid professionals involved

the issue is its impossible for the state to afford to provide a jury trial to everyone that is currently eligible. A trial has >5 paid professionals involved, plus the jurors, there just isn't enough time or money to process the case load. the courts/prosecutors, out of necessity, have set up a shadow system of pressuring most defendants into plea bargains based on the relative strength of their case, which would be fine except the rules around this are weak and its ripe for abuse by the lazy or career/politically motivated. At some point we'll need to admit this and draw up a better system for minor felonies.

gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
I guess I'm not in the majority these days but I believe that no cost is too high to prevent an innocent person being subject to imprisonment. Also if the cost is too high then our society/laws are broken and that is what needs fixing - not by just working out cheaper ways to lock people up.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I agree, but are you willing to pay higher taxes to fund that?
  - gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
    Yes - but I'd rather remove the prohibition on a whole swath of currently criminalised activities.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    This reminds a little bit of when people tell me we have to have undocumented workers getting paid below-minimum wage with, in practical terms, little protection from abuse because otherwise fruit or hotels would be more expensive. It seems so plainly morally bankrupt that I'm surprised how often I hear it.
  - MarkPNeyer 9y ago
    a) end the insane drug war b) get rid of the distinction between 'prosectuor' and 'public defendant' - make state laweyers take sides randomly (With coin flip) and reward them more for wins on defense than prosecution. c) make private prisons pay the state a refund when any released prisons commits a new crime outside. Watch recidivism drop.
CaptSpify 9y ago
I wonder how much we could free up the courts if we stopped wasting time on useless laws? Example (that is drenched in personal opinion): How much time would we save the courts if we stopped prosecuting people for personal drug abuse?
- rplst8 9y ago
  I gave you an upvote, but how overwhelmed will our social services become if personal drug use goes unchecked by policing? (orphaned children, neglected or abused children, poverty/welfare of possible increase in drug use) I'm not saying I agree with the war on drugs, but we may just trade one problem for another
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how many children are pushed through social services because their parent is waiting a proper trial? FWIW, my point is not about drugs, that's just an opinionated example. It's about wasting time policing things that shouldn't be policed.
- scarmig 9y ago
  It's an appealing story to think that the main reason the courts and prisons are so overburdened is personal drug use. Since most (of us) agree that rehabilitation or laissez-faire is better than imprisonment, we get to solve another huge problem by adopting our preferred solution. Unfortunately, they're not particularly complicated cases, and drug offenders only make up like a sixth of the prison population. So, it'd help, but the USA would still be a huge outlier internationally, let alone among developed Western countries.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    > It's an appealing story to think that the main reason the courts and prisons are so overburdened is personal drug use. I don't believe this at all (simply due to lack of evidence), which is why I phrased it as a question. Additionally, it's just an example, in which I tried to be clear that my personal beliefs make me biased in. Feel free to substitute your own "useless prosecution" in it's place |;) That being said, 1/6 seems like a pretty hefty amount.
mhermher 9y ago
If the state can't afford it, then they should choose to prosecute more selectively. It's on them if they can't afford it, but instead it's pushed onto the poor instead.

gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago

I guess I'm not in the majority these days but I believe that no cost is too high to prevent an innocent person being subject to imprisonment. Also if the cost is too high then our society/laws are broken and that is what needs fixing - not by just working out cheaper ways to lock people up.

forapurpose 9y ago
I agree, but are you willing to pay higher taxes to fund that?
- gjjrfcbugxbhf 9y ago
  Yes - but I'd rather remove the prohibition on a whole swath of currently criminalised activities.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  This reminds a little bit of when people tell me we have to have undocumented workers getting paid below-minimum wage with, in practical terms, little protection from abuse because otherwise fruit or hotels would be more expensive. It seems so plainly morally bankrupt that I'm surprised how often I hear it.
- MarkPNeyer 9y ago
  a) end the insane drug war b) get rid of the distinction between 'prosectuor' and 'public defendant' - make state laweyers take sides randomly (With coin flip) and reward them more for wins on defense than prosecution. c) make private prisons pay the state a refund when any released prisons commits a new crime outside. Watch recidivism drop.

CaptSpify 9y ago

I wonder how much we could free up the courts if we stopped wasting time on useless laws? Example (that is drenched in personal opinion): How much time would we save the courts if we stopped prosecuting people for personal drug abuse?

rplst8 9y ago
I gave you an upvote, but how overwhelmed will our social services become if personal drug use goes unchecked by policing? (orphaned children, neglected or abused children, poverty/welfare of possible increase in drug use) I'm not saying I agree with the war on drugs, but we may just trade one problem for another
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how many children are pushed through social services because their parent is waiting a proper trial? FWIW, my point is not about drugs, that's just an opinionated example. It's about wasting time policing things that shouldn't be policed.
scarmig 9y ago
It's an appealing story to think that the main reason the courts and prisons are so overburdened is personal drug use. Since most (of us) agree that rehabilitation or laissez-faire is better than imprisonment, we get to solve another huge problem by adopting our preferred solution. Unfortunately, they're not particularly complicated cases, and drug offenders only make up like a sixth of the prison population. So, it'd help, but the USA would still be a huge outlier internationally, let alone among developed Western countries.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  > It's an appealing story to think that the main reason the courts and prisons are so overburdened is personal drug use. I don't believe this at all (simply due to lack of evidence), which is why I phrased it as a question. Additionally, it's just an example, in which I tried to be clear that my personal beliefs make me biased in. Feel free to substitute your own "useless prosecution" in it's place |;) That being said, 1/6 seems like a pretty hefty amount.

mhermher 9y ago

If the state can't afford it, then they should choose to prosecute more selectively. It's on them if they can't afford it, but instead it's pushed onto the poor instead.