5 ms·

> Witnesses might not say what you expected them to; you might not fare well under cross-examination and there is always the risk that some unexpected piece of

> Witnesses might not say what you expected them to; you might not fare well under cross-examination and there is always the risk that some unexpected piece of prosecution evidence might be served on the day in court (I’ve seen this happen more than once). Your barrister might screw up your case too. Finally, the jury – 12 random men and women – may simply not believe your defence and vote to convict you, even if you are genuinely innocent. Even if two jurors have doubts, the votes of the remaining ten are sufficient for a conviction. As screwed up as our justice system is, having rights of the accused (such as to review evidence before it's presented and needing unanimous votes for a conviction) makes these errors less of a concern in the US. Not impossible, but less likely.

jopsen 8y ago
If you can afford a lawyer, 90% in the US go to prison in a plea bargain.. The UK have a few limits on what can be bargained... No justice justice system is perfect, but I'm generally pretty bummed by of what we hear coming out of them..
- nostromo95 8y ago
  >90% go to prison in a plea bargain I also think our criminal justice system is in need of some reform, but this number by itself doesn’t say anything. What % of defendants are actually guilty? What portion of that 90% are for offenses that in better circumstances wouldn’t call for prison time?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    In Belgium, in youth facilities something like a solid 90% of inmates (children) are not even accused of a crime. Rather their parents have divorced or they "have been diagnosed with ADD" (a condition psychiatrists don't even agree exists in the first place), or ... And their "development needs to be safeguarded". The remaining 10% (at most) mostly (>80%) are convicted of running away from youth services, about half the time with help from their parents (which is a crime, for children, "statusdelict"). For the remainder the vast majority committed theft, and there are single digit children who committed serious crimes. And while the cells are slightly nicer, not much nicer. The doors are very much locked. Also if the staff judges there to be any risk of you damaging your room, yourself, or they just think you did something wrong, you may spend an arbitrary amount of time in an isolation cell, in 2018 inspections reported cases where 2 weeks isolation cell was done. You have no rights as a child before the law. You do not have the right to a lawyer. You do not have the right to demand proof. You do not have the right to not be incarcerated if you're innocent (yes, really). You do not have the right to even know what your punishment is. If you're under 12 you do not even have the right to speak during your trial, and above you only have the right to be heard. You do not have the right to know what you're accused of (which may be nothing at all, just that "your development is in danger"). You do not have the right to not be punished twice for the same crime (effectively meaning incarceration can be arbitrarily prolonged, during and even after they've finished, on the say so of the "educators" at the "institution"). You do not have the right to appeal a decision (the judge must allow that, yes, really, needless to say, this is extremely rare). Sentences are carried while an appeal is hanging or being carried out (often you don't have the right to attend your appeal). You do not have the right to education. You do not have the right to books, or library, tv, contact with the outside world, or ... Those "educators"/guards who tell the judge to extend or not extend your incarceration are employed by companies who have a direct financial incentive to demand extensions (they're paid per "filled bed" and treatments provided). The same is true for the investigators of child abuse. They're paid per investigation ... and per treatment provided. Needless to say, the system is rife with abuse (and youth services choose the side of the "educators" who commit the abuse in all examples I could find). In several cases in the past 5 years these people got caught sexually abusing children, in one case they got caught pimping out minors. (As for actual crimes: total number of serious crimes (technically involuntary maslaughter): 2. Theft with violence or other violence was between 20 and 40 for the whole year. Total number of MOF (crimes) cases < 200. Total number of inmates: ~4000) NEVER EVER cooperate with youth services. Any of them at all. Any kid is MUCH better of in even a very abusive relationship than in the "care" of these assholes. If you think they will physically survive the abuse, I would literally ask you to lie to child services, and to the police to protect children from them. This is the only moral action, and you are protecting those children from a much, MUCH, worse fate.
    - kevinskii 8y ago
      This is very interesting. Do you have any sources? I can't seem to find much.
      - candiodari 8y ago
        This is the law governing these practices: https://codex.vlaanderen.be/portals/codex/documenten/1023237.html https://codex.vlaanderen.be/portals/codex/documenten/1023237... What you will not find there is any requirement for any kind of proof (not that it matters because there is no appeal process, so they're not exactly making sure they follow this in practice). Or, for "MOF" ("crimes", knowing that by far the most common youth crime is running away from youth services): http://docs.vlaamsparlement.be/pfile?id=1427106 http://docs.vlaamsparlement.be/pfile?id=1427106 They're in the Dutch language. And here is a report on what is done with the kids, again in Dutch: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/09/03/lorin-parys-n-va-verontwaardigd-over-toestand-in-gesloten-jeug/ https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/09/03/lorin-parys-n-va-ver... Meanwhile, they have appointed the person in charge of complaints about Youth services ... head of youth services. "Bruno Vanobbergen", who lied in Parliament about the reports he had received. Apparently there is nothing wrong at all ! Here he is doing just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bDeIb22uY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bDeIb22uY0 (This leaked out because one of the parlement members had just adopted 2 kids with his partner and heard their stories about their situation in youth services)
    - cozos 8y ago
      There was this really interesting discussion on a different thread [0] about how _any_ contact with child services drastically reduces the intelligence of a child. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18760039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18760039
  - mr_tristan 8y ago
    Hard to say, but there is a strong reason poor people would plea out even if they were innocent: they can get in and out with a minor plea, since their processing can take a long time (weeks or months). Ergo, if you're financially solvent, that fact may be taken into account, since you'll be harder to prosecute - you'll have your own lawyer, etc. One major problem with plea bargains in the US is that we don't know, because plea agreements themselves are sealed. Also, there is very inconsistent oversight of these plea arrangements. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-prosecutors/524112/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-ba...
  - pigscantfly 8y ago
    Anecdotally, my father and grandfather have both practiced criminal defense law for several decades each in Florida. They've told me that they tend to get a completely innocent client through the door about once every two years.
    - collyw 8y ago
      Having been on jury duty, I was shocked on how many people were not basing their decision on the evidence (as they were instructed to). Some seemed to be treating it like a TV drama where they were second guessing what actually happened.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    Great article below addressing how that works: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-peo... It's worth knowing that the prosecutors have incentives to convict as many people as possible while defendents often don't know the strength of the case. Prosecutors and cops can also lie to get a confession. Combine the two and you can get a lot of innocent people to confess just doing basic math on what they're offered vs what they'll probably get for fighting back.
- User23 8y ago
  This is going to be an unpopular observation, but most people that are charged are guilty. This is actually why the presumption of innocence is so important! If most people charged were actually innocent then there would be no need to explicitly presume innocence. Prosecutors generally don't bring a case to court unless there is sufficient evidence.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    You might well be right but by what basis do you establish this? The percentage that is convicted? This would ignore any bias in the system whatsoever. The presumption of competence? The FBI admitted after decades of relying on hair analysis that it spent decades just lying and actually couldn't tell human hair from dog hair.
    - User23 8y ago
      As I said, the presumption of innocence is extremely important!
  - drewmol 8y ago
    >but most people that are charged are guilty. Just a point to consider: this is dependent on what you mean by "are guilty". The incentive to encourage plea deals by courts, prosecutors and attorneys, along with a perceived leniency of outcomes among many in law enforcement has contributed to the practice of over charging. This is especially true for certain categories of crime, drug charges being one of those categories. So while I would agree that most people charged are guilty on some of the charges, I posit that most people charged may not be guilty of all charges initially levied against them.
dminor 8y ago
Actually in Oregon you don't need a unanimous jury to be convicted, 10 is sufficient except in murder cases. Apparently we're the last state to allow this.

jopsen 8y ago

If you can afford a lawyer, 90% in the US go to prison in a plea bargain.. The UK have a few limits on what can be bargained... No justice justice system is perfect, but I'm generally pretty bummed by of what we hear coming out of them..

nostromo95 8y ago
>90% go to prison in a plea bargain I also think our criminal justice system is in need of some reform, but this number by itself doesn’t say anything. What % of defendants are actually guilty? What portion of that 90% are for offenses that in better circumstances wouldn’t call for prison time?
- candiodari 8y ago
  In Belgium, in youth facilities something like a solid 90% of inmates (children) are not even accused of a crime. Rather their parents have divorced or they "have been diagnosed with ADD" (a condition psychiatrists don't even agree exists in the first place), or ... And their "development needs to be safeguarded". The remaining 10% (at most) mostly (>80%) are convicted of running away from youth services, about half the time with help from their parents (which is a crime, for children, "statusdelict"). For the remainder the vast majority committed theft, and there are single digit children who committed serious crimes. And while the cells are slightly nicer, not much nicer. The doors are very much locked. Also if the staff judges there to be any risk of you damaging your room, yourself, or they just think you did something wrong, you may spend an arbitrary amount of time in an isolation cell, in 2018 inspections reported cases where 2 weeks isolation cell was done. You have no rights as a child before the law. You do not have the right to a lawyer. You do not have the right to demand proof. You do not have the right to not be incarcerated if you're innocent (yes, really). You do not have the right to even know what your punishment is. If you're under 12 you do not even have the right to speak during your trial, and above you only have the right to be heard. You do not have the right to know what you're accused of (which may be nothing at all, just that "your development is in danger"). You do not have the right to not be punished twice for the same crime (effectively meaning incarceration can be arbitrarily prolonged, during and even after they've finished, on the say so of the "educators" at the "institution"). You do not have the right to appeal a decision (the judge must allow that, yes, really, needless to say, this is extremely rare). Sentences are carried while an appeal is hanging or being carried out (often you don't have the right to attend your appeal). You do not have the right to education. You do not have the right to books, or library, tv, contact with the outside world, or ... Those "educators"/guards who tell the judge to extend or not extend your incarceration are employed by companies who have a direct financial incentive to demand extensions (they're paid per "filled bed" and treatments provided). The same is true for the investigators of child abuse. They're paid per investigation ... and per treatment provided. Needless to say, the system is rife with abuse (and youth services choose the side of the "educators" who commit the abuse in all examples I could find). In several cases in the past 5 years these people got caught sexually abusing children, in one case they got caught pimping out minors. (As for actual crimes: total number of serious crimes (technically involuntary maslaughter): 2. Theft with violence or other violence was between 20 and 40 for the whole year. Total number of MOF (crimes) cases < 200. Total number of inmates: ~4000) NEVER EVER cooperate with youth services. Any of them at all. Any kid is MUCH better of in even a very abusive relationship than in the "care" of these assholes. If you think they will physically survive the abuse, I would literally ask you to lie to child services, and to the police to protect children from them. This is the only moral action, and you are protecting those children from a much, MUCH, worse fate.
  - kevinskii 8y ago
    This is very interesting. Do you have any sources? I can't seem to find much.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      This is the law governing these practices: https://codex.vlaanderen.be/portals/codex/documenten/1023237.html https://codex.vlaanderen.be/portals/codex/documenten/1023237... What you will not find there is any requirement for any kind of proof (not that it matters because there is no appeal process, so they're not exactly making sure they follow this in practice). Or, for "MOF" ("crimes", knowing that by far the most common youth crime is running away from youth services): http://docs.vlaamsparlement.be/pfile?id=1427106 http://docs.vlaamsparlement.be/pfile?id=1427106 They're in the Dutch language. And here is a report on what is done with the kids, again in Dutch: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/09/03/lorin-parys-n-va-verontwaardigd-over-toestand-in-gesloten-jeug/ https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2018/09/03/lorin-parys-n-va-ver... Meanwhile, they have appointed the person in charge of complaints about Youth services ... head of youth services. "Bruno Vanobbergen", who lied in Parliament about the reports he had received. Apparently there is nothing wrong at all ! Here he is doing just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bDeIb22uY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bDeIb22uY0 (This leaked out because one of the parlement members had just adopted 2 kids with his partner and heard their stories about their situation in youth services)
  - cozos 8y ago
    There was this really interesting discussion on a different thread [0] about how _any_ contact with child services drastically reduces the intelligence of a child. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18760039 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18760039
- mr_tristan 8y ago
  Hard to say, but there is a strong reason poor people would plea out even if they were innocent: they can get in and out with a minor plea, since their processing can take a long time (weeks or months). Ergo, if you're financially solvent, that fact may be taken into account, since you'll be harder to prosecute - you'll have your own lawyer, etc. One major problem with plea bargains in the US is that we don't know, because plea agreements themselves are sealed. Also, there is very inconsistent oversight of these plea arrangements. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-bargaining-courts-prosecutors/524112/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/plea-ba...
- pigscantfly 8y ago
  Anecdotally, my father and grandfather have both practiced criminal defense law for several decades each in Florida. They've told me that they tend to get a completely innocent client through the door about once every two years.
  - collyw 8y ago
    Having been on jury duty, I was shocked on how many people were not basing their decision on the evidence (as they were instructed to). Some seemed to be treating it like a TV drama where they were second guessing what actually happened.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  Great article below addressing how that works: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-peo... It's worth knowing that the prosecutors have incentives to convict as many people as possible while defendents often don't know the strength of the case. Prosecutors and cops can also lie to get a confession. Combine the two and you can get a lot of innocent people to confess just doing basic math on what they're offered vs what they'll probably get for fighting back.
User23 8y ago
This is going to be an unpopular observation, but most people that are charged are guilty. This is actually why the presumption of innocence is so important! If most people charged were actually innocent then there would be no need to explicitly presume innocence. Prosecutors generally don't bring a case to court unless there is sufficient evidence.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  You might well be right but by what basis do you establish this? The percentage that is convicted? This would ignore any bias in the system whatsoever. The presumption of competence? The FBI admitted after decades of relying on hair analysis that it spent decades just lying and actually couldn't tell human hair from dog hair.
  - User23 8y ago
    As I said, the presumption of innocence is extremely important!
- drewmol 8y ago
  >but most people that are charged are guilty. Just a point to consider: this is dependent on what you mean by "are guilty". The incentive to encourage plea deals by courts, prosecutors and attorneys, along with a perceived leniency of outcomes among many in law enforcement has contributed to the practice of over charging. This is especially true for certain categories of crime, drug charges being one of those categories. So while I would agree that most people charged are guilty on some of the charges, I posit that most people charged may not be guilty of all charges initially levied against them.

dminor 8y ago

Actually in Oregon you don't need a unanimous jury to be convicted, 10 is sufficient except in murder cases. Apparently we're the last state to allow this.