4 ms·

Not just common law. In the US, it is spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the legal system has so distorted the plain meaning of "speedy trial" th

Not just common law. In the US, it is spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the legal system has so distorted the plain meaning of "speedy trial" that we end up with insane, but "Constitutional" situations.

mydogcanpurr 4y ago
I was going to ask what happened to the 6th amendment, but it sounds like it's in the garbage with all the others.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway_6th 4y ago
  The 6th only covers situations where you explicitly object to a delay in your speedy trial right. Often it's in the interest of the defense to delay a trial as a tactic in preventing a conviction (e.g. by introducing a defense that the victim doesn't recall exactly). Also stupid shit like the prosecution withholding or delaying evidence that would tend to exonerate the defendant happens. What tends to happen is that the prosecution and the defendants lawyer agree to continuance after continuance. (Source: been there done that, had an open and shut self defense case that took about a year to go to trial)
bena 4y ago
I think part of the issue is the sheer scale of the problem. If I have 366 people in jail today awaiting trial and I try one case a day on average, it would be a year before you get to the last person. Yes, the problem is alleviated with more judges, more lawyers, and more juries, but that's the problem. Those resources are not infinite.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  This is actually more of a funding problem than a supply problem. In many jurisdictions, the criminal justice system is expected to pay for itself, in part or nearly in total.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    If we’re talking supply and demand, reducing the supply of prosecutions for victimlesss crimes stuff like drug use and possession, reproductive decisions, and etc. might help alleviate the demand at courthouses.
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      Agreed. Eating the hotdog from both ends makes sense here.
    - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
      Damn near all possession laws and laws where criminal intent is not required should be civil offenses without potential penalty of jail time.
- BobaFloutist 4y ago
  They're not infinite, but I can't think of a concrete reason judges, lawyers, and juries aren't scalable to population. I can think of systemic limits, but none of them feel immutable.
  - bena 4y ago
    You have issues with training and promotion in the cases of judges and lawyers. Not insurmountable, but there will be a lag if we were to say "We need X% more lawyers now". You also have the issue that in order to guarantee a trial as soon as all non-people concerns are resolved, you'll need judges and lawyers doing nothing. Once you're at 100% capacity, any additional case has to wait. And the length of the wait is indeterminate. The real problem, people-wise, is juries. Juries are selected from the community at large. They're vetted and questioned. This takes time. And not for the criminals, but for the juries themselves. You could easily wind up with essentially professional juries, which runs counter to the idea of "jury of your peers". And beyond that, all these cases need to be tried somewhere.
- patmcc 4y ago
  Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're innocent people. The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the most extreme cases, and for any who aren't granted bail they should be at trial ASAP.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    For the vast majority of cases, bail shouldn't even be required.
    - landemva 4y ago
      SBF prosecutors got a big number bail, but nobody actually put up that cash. They pledged to pay later. So it's working for a financial scammer.
    - patmcc 4y ago
      Yah I should have clarified - 'bail should be granted' meaning people being released without cash bail - a promise to appear, holding passports, maybe other restrictions, I think those are pretty reasonable.
  - bena 4y ago
    They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question. And yes, the entire system is messed up. These people are being treated as definitely guilty when their status is in question. Sometimes for offenses that would not even require the level of incarceration they are at. You'll spend 15 months in jail awaiting trial for an offense that carries a 6 month maximum sentence. And even if they release you after 6 months because it would be cruel to incarcerate you "temporarily" for longer than the sentence to determine if you should even be incarcerated, it's not like you can get that 6 months back if you're not proven guilty. (Because the court doesn't prove you're innocent, just that it can't prove you're guilty, which is different.) But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half. The system defers to assuming guilt because of fear. If you defer to assuming no guilt and you're wrong, you could be wrong in a very bad way. If you lock up an innocent man for 10 years, people will shake their heads and say "What a shame." If you let a murderer free while awaiting trial and they kill someone else, you are going to get absolutely fucked. And while the chance of the second is pretty low, it's not a chance any of them want to take. It's Pascal wager, but for crime. And we know crime and criminals exist.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  We could also try fewer laws. Just a thought.
DubiousPusher 4y ago
I believe this distortion is largely the product of the fact that the justice system has simply not grown in order to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population over time nor has it modernized practices sufficiently to mitigate this disparity. For example, many matters which would've been settled rapidly 50 years ago are delayed because each time the judge schedules a subsequent hearing, it is put at the end of an already extensive schedule. Because the docket of each judge is so full, a follow-up hearing for a respondant which would've come 3-4 days or maybe a week later in the past is now booked weeks or months down the road. I don't refer to the time delays which are intended to accommodate preparation of defense or to provide discovery. Totally perfunctory appearances can be spread out over weeks or months. The system has also failed to grown or adapt to accommodate the significant growth in chargeable offenses. Many more things are a criminal matter now than were 70 years ago.
- jamiek88 4y ago
  Same with congress. Proportional to population representation in congress, even at Wyoming population level would see around 3000 representatives. There’s a 700k to one mismatch and too much power in the hands of too few people. There would be a lot more room for more political parties too, breaking up the duopoly can only be good regardless of your leanings. The tents are too broad. Interesting to think about.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Iteresting episode of Bruce Carlson's 'My History Can Beatup Your Politics' where he goes over the history of house size. Hopefully this link works for the non-subs. http://www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.com/repre.mp3 http://www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.com/repre.mp3
- prirun 4y ago
  > I believe this distortion is largely the product of the fact that the justice system has simply not grown in order to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population I believe this distortion is because small crimes like being caught with a joint are causing our jails and legal systems to become overloaded. The solution is not to grow the justice system but rather to make sure we don't overload it with laws & violations that are unimportant.
magila 4y ago
My understanding is that most people opt to waive their right to a speedy trial after consulting with a lawyer. The reason is invoking the right guarantees the prosecutor will go hard in the paint pressing the maximum possible charges and generally making the defendant's life as unpleasant as possible.
- Zak 4y ago
  That's a significant problem. A right that is very risky to invoke is effectively denied.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    That’s how the right to a jury of peers works now too - you’re expected to take a plea deal, and prosecutors threaten more charges and ask for longer sentences if someone won’t take a deal.

mydogcanpurr 4y ago

I was going to ask what happened to the 6th amendment, but it sounds like it's in the garbage with all the others.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
throwaway_6th 4y ago
The 6th only covers situations where you explicitly object to a delay in your speedy trial right. Often it's in the interest of the defense to delay a trial as a tactic in preventing a conviction (e.g. by introducing a defense that the victim doesn't recall exactly). Also stupid shit like the prosecution withholding or delaying evidence that would tend to exonerate the defendant happens. What tends to happen is that the prosecution and the defendants lawyer agree to continuance after continuance. (Source: been there done that, had an open and shut self defense case that took about a year to go to trial)

bena 4y ago

I think part of the issue is the sheer scale of the problem. If I have 366 people in jail today awaiting trial and I try one case a day on average, it would be a year before you get to the last person. Yes, the problem is alleviated with more judges, more lawyers, and more juries, but that's the problem. Those resources are not infinite.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
This is actually more of a funding problem than a supply problem. In many jurisdictions, the criminal justice system is expected to pay for itself, in part or nearly in total.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  If we’re talking supply and demand, reducing the supply of prosecutions for victimlesss crimes stuff like drug use and possession, reproductive decisions, and etc. might help alleviate the demand at courthouses.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Agreed. Eating the hotdog from both ends makes sense here.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Damn near all possession laws and laws where criminal intent is not required should be civil offenses without potential penalty of jail time.
BobaFloutist 4y ago
They're not infinite, but I can't think of a concrete reason judges, lawyers, and juries aren't scalable to population. I can think of systemic limits, but none of them feel immutable.
- bena 4y ago
  You have issues with training and promotion in the cases of judges and lawyers. Not insurmountable, but there will be a lag if we were to say "We need X% more lawyers now". You also have the issue that in order to guarantee a trial as soon as all non-people concerns are resolved, you'll need judges and lawyers doing nothing. Once you're at 100% capacity, any additional case has to wait. And the length of the wait is indeterminate. The real problem, people-wise, is juries. Juries are selected from the community at large. They're vetted and questioned. This takes time. And not for the criminals, but for the juries themselves. You could easily wind up with essentially professional juries, which runs counter to the idea of "jury of your peers". And beyond that, all these cases need to be tried somewhere.
patmcc 4y ago
Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're innocent people. The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the most extreme cases, and for any who aren't granted bail they should be at trial ASAP.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  For the vast majority of cases, bail shouldn't even be required.
  - landemva 4y ago
    SBF prosecutors got a big number bail, but nobody actually put up that cash. They pledged to pay later. So it's working for a financial scammer.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    Yah I should have clarified - 'bail should be granted' meaning people being released without cash bail - a promise to appear, holding passports, maybe other restrictions, I think those are pretty reasonable.
- bena 4y ago
  They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question. And yes, the entire system is messed up. These people are being treated as definitely guilty when their status is in question. Sometimes for offenses that would not even require the level of incarceration they are at. You'll spend 15 months in jail awaiting trial for an offense that carries a 6 month maximum sentence. And even if they release you after 6 months because it would be cruel to incarcerate you "temporarily" for longer than the sentence to determine if you should even be incarcerated, it's not like you can get that 6 months back if you're not proven guilty. (Because the court doesn't prove you're innocent, just that it can't prove you're guilty, which is different.) But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half. The system defers to assuming guilt because of fear. If you defer to assuming no guilt and you're wrong, you could be wrong in a very bad way. If you lock up an innocent man for 10 years, people will shake their heads and say "What a shame." If you let a murderer free while awaiting trial and they kill someone else, you are going to get absolutely fucked. And while the chance of the second is pretty low, it's not a chance any of them want to take. It's Pascal wager, but for crime. And we know crime and criminals exist.
marcus0x62 4y ago
We could also try fewer laws. Just a thought.

DubiousPusher 4y ago

I believe this distortion is largely the product of the fact that the justice system has simply not grown in order to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population over time nor has it modernized practices sufficiently to mitigate this disparity. For example, many matters which would've been settled rapidly 50 years ago are delayed because each time the judge schedules a subsequent hearing, it is put at the end of an already extensive schedule. Because the docket of each judge is so full, a follow-up hearing for a respondant which would've come 3-4 days or maybe a week later in the past is now booked weeks or months down the road. I don't refer to the time delays which are intended to accommodate preparation of defense or to provide discovery. Totally perfunctory appearances can be spread out over weeks or months. The system has also failed to grown or adapt to accommodate the significant growth in chargeable offenses. Many more things are a criminal matter now than were 70 years ago.

jamiek88 4y ago
Same with congress. Proportional to population representation in congress, even at Wyoming population level would see around 3000 representatives. There’s a 700k to one mismatch and too much power in the hands of too few people. There would be a lot more room for more political parties too, breaking up the duopoly can only be good regardless of your leanings. The tents are too broad. Interesting to think about.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Iteresting episode of Bruce Carlson's 'My History Can Beatup Your Politics' where he goes over the history of house size. Hopefully this link works for the non-subs. http://www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.com/repre.mp3 http://www.myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.com/repre.mp3
prirun 4y ago
> I believe this distortion is largely the product of the fact that the justice system has simply not grown in order to keep up with the growth of the U.S. population I believe this distortion is because small crimes like being caught with a joint are causing our jails and legal systems to become overloaded. The solution is not to grow the justice system but rather to make sure we don't overload it with laws & violations that are unimportant.

magila 4y ago

My understanding is that most people opt to waive their right to a speedy trial after consulting with a lawyer. The reason is invoking the right guarantees the prosecutor will go hard in the paint pressing the maximum possible charges and generally making the defendant's life as unpleasant as possible.

Zak 4y ago
That's a significant problem. A right that is very risky to invoke is effectively denied.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  That’s how the right to a jury of peers works now too - you’re expected to take a plea deal, and prosecutors threaten more charges and ask for longer sentences if someone won’t take a deal.