9 ms·

25 years of evidence for repealing the Prison Litigation Reform Act

52 points by nickysielicki 4y ago

TedShiller 4y ago
tiahura 4y ago
My understanding is that most judges use their clerks (not the real ones, the unpaid ones) to handle (ie deny) these. It seemed unfair that a 3L was dismissing habeas petitions without the underlying case file, but the alternative didn’t seem real workable either.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  When the status quo and all alternatives aren't workable, the only option is to zoom out a level until there is something to change.
LinkLink 4y ago
Lawmakers really used to, and still do, just blatantly disregard the interests of the people for the interests of the state.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- btilly 4y ago
  Don't forget that for many decades "tough on crime" was an easy ticket to reelection for politicians. The same era saw the 3 strikes law. Which saw relative progressives like Hillary Clinton giving speeches about how it was needed to get "black super-predators" off of the streets. And if you were accused of being soft on crime, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton demonstrated that a Republican could win in 4 out of 5 states (despite starting behind in the popular vote) by harping on that enough.
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    Clinton never said “black” super predators. > "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.
    - btilly 4y ago
      Fair point. She didn't use those words. But everyone understood her to mean that. Which is why https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-pri... calls this claim mostly true.
      - sarchertech 4y ago
        Regardless of what she meant, my issue was with putting it in quotes. I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously. Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black.
        nyokodo 4y ago
        > I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously . Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black. If she thought gang members were predominantly young and black and she talked about combating them like the mob, labeling them as super predators with no empathy or conscience etc… what do you think she was consciously imagining? This is a weak defense if ever there was one.
        sarchertech 4y ago
        She probably thought something like “Gang members are bad because they kill people. Let’s stop gang members from killing people.” Without thinking through the the nuances of the long history of racial oppression that led the gang members to become criminals in the first place. The same way that people who were combating the mob didn’t consider the history of oppression that lead to the creation of the Sicilian mafia. I would argue that in this situation she was shortsighted and yes lacked empathy. But I don’t think there was any conscious racial animus there the way quoting “black super predators” makes it sound. I doubt she considered the racial component at all.
btilly 4y ago
I consider every part of our jail system a travesty. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, have an abusive plea bargain process to more efficiently railroad people in, avoid oversight of our prisons, and once prisoners get out they are often unemployable. Just to offer one example, until 1970 plea bargaining was generally considered unconstitutional because it offers such large incentives for innocent people to not even attempt to defend their rights, no matter how flimsy the evidence against them. Today over 95% of cases are decided by plea bargains. The rate varies by crime. For drug offenses it is around 97%. And yet in most cases the actual investigation is no more than a faulty field test that is inadmissible in court. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside... for verification of that. Whatever your opinion on our war on drugs, it is clear that a lot of people going to jail for drugs are actually innocent. See https://innocenceproject.org/an-end-to-plea-bargains/ https://innocenceproject.org/an-end-to-plea-bargains/ for more.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  This is depressing. I've always thought plea bargains should be disallowed for all these totally obvious reasons, but I can't believe they actually used to be before being allowed in. Hopefully plea bargains will someday once again be illegal.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  This is my primary reason for supporting drug legalization. I am not sure why more people do not see the massive damage done to society over all, and the massive risk even non-drug users have to being abused. I can point to countless cases where people have been arrested for legal activity, one case where a family was harassed because they visited a garden store, and had loose leaf tea in their garage that triggered one of those field tests. When ever this issue is debated the supporters of the drug laws often claim only people that want to get high support legalization, I have no desire to use drugs, I want to have my rights protected, and not be railroaded by a flawed legal system or have my house raided under flimsy "evidence"
omginternets 4y ago
What were the arguments in favor of this in the first place? Reading the article, it seems like an absolute travesty -- and it may well be -- but still, I like to understand why the fence was installed before advocating its removal. What problem was this legislation trying to solve? Can anyone provide context?
- getcrunk 4y ago
  Second paragraph: "When the PLRA was being debated, lawmakers who supported it claimed that too many people behind bars were filing frivolous cases against the government."
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Sorry, I should have been clearer. This is a rather superficial explanation. I'm curious about the details of political discourse around the law when it was signed.
tomohawk 4y ago

52 points by nickysielicki 4y ago

My understanding is that most judges use their clerks (not the real ones, the unpaid ones) to handle (ie deny) these. It seemed unfair that a 3L was dismissing habeas petitions without the underlying case file, but the alternative didn’t seem real workable either.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
When the status quo and all alternatives aren't workable, the only option is to zoom out a level until there is something to change.

LinkLink 4y ago

Lawmakers really used to, and still do, just blatantly disregard the interests of the people for the interests of the state.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
btilly 4y ago
Don't forget that for many decades "tough on crime" was an easy ticket to reelection for politicians. The same era saw the 3 strikes law. Which saw relative progressives like Hillary Clinton giving speeches about how it was needed to get "black super-predators" off of the streets. And if you were accused of being soft on crime, well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton demonstrated that a Republican could win in 4 out of 5 states (despite starting behind in the popular vote) by harping on that enough.
- sarchertech 4y ago
  Clinton never said “black” super predators. > "But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs," Hillary Clinton said in a C-SPAN video clip. "Just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels, they are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called superpredators — no conscience, no empathy.
  - btilly 4y ago
    Fair point. She didn't use those words. But everyone understood her to mean that. Which is why https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-priebus/did-hillary-clinton-call-african-american-youth-su/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/aug/28/reince-pri... calls this claim mostly true.
    - sarchertech 4y ago
      Regardless of what she meant, my issue was with putting it in quotes. I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously. Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black.
      - nyokodo 4y ago
        > I also doubt she was targeting black kids consciously . Even if many people (including herself) tended to think of gang members as young and Black. If she thought gang members were predominantly young and black and she talked about combating them like the mob, labeling them as super predators with no empathy or conscience etc… what do you think she was consciously imagining? This is a weak defense if ever there was one.
        sarchertech 4y ago
        She probably thought something like “Gang members are bad because they kill people. Let’s stop gang members from killing people.” Without thinking through the the nuances of the long history of racial oppression that led the gang members to become criminals in the first place. The same way that people who were combating the mob didn’t consider the history of oppression that lead to the creation of the Sicilian mafia. I would argue that in this situation she was shortsighted and yes lacked empathy. But I don’t think there was any conscious racial animus there the way quoting “black super predators” makes it sound. I doubt she considered the racial component at all.

btilly 4y ago

I consider every part of our jail system a travesty. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world, have an abusive plea bargain process to more efficiently railroad people in, avoid oversight of our prisons, and once prisoners get out they are often unemployable. Just to offer one example, until 1970 plea bargaining was generally considered unconstitutional because it offers such large incentives for innocent people to not even attempt to defend their rights, no matter how flimsy the evidence against them. Today over 95% of cases are decided by plea bargains. The rate varies by crime. For drug offenses it is around 97%. And yet in most cases the actual investigation is no more than a faulty field test that is inadmissible in court. See https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside... for verification of that. Whatever your opinion on our war on drugs, it is clear that a lot of people going to jail for drugs are actually innocent. See https://innocenceproject.org/an-end-to-plea-bargains/ https://innocenceproject.org/an-end-to-plea-bargains/ for more.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
This is depressing. I've always thought plea bargains should be disallowed for all these totally obvious reasons, but I can't believe they actually used to be before being allowed in. Hopefully plea bargains will someday once again be illegal.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
phpisthebest 4y ago
This is my primary reason for supporting drug legalization. I am not sure why more people do not see the massive damage done to society over all, and the massive risk even non-drug users have to being abused. I can point to countless cases where people have been arrested for legal activity, one case where a family was harassed because they visited a garden store, and had loose leaf tea in their garage that triggered one of those field tests. When ever this issue is debated the supporters of the drug laws often claim only people that want to get high support legalization, I have no desire to use drugs, I want to have my rights protected, and not be railroaded by a flawed legal system or have my house raided under flimsy "evidence"

omginternets 4y ago

What were the arguments in favor of this in the first place? Reading the article, it seems like an absolute travesty -- and it may well be -- but still, I like to understand why the fence was installed before advocating its removal. What problem was this legislation trying to solve? Can anyone provide context?

getcrunk 4y ago
Second paragraph: "When the PLRA was being debated, lawmakers who supported it claimed that too many people behind bars were filing frivolous cases against the government."
- omginternets 4y ago
  Sorry, I should have been clearer. This is a rather superficial explanation. I'm curious about the details of political discourse around the law when it was signed.

tomohawk 4y ago