4 ms·

After being railroaded by a dirty prosecutor, I’d like to dispel one trope: Brandolini’s law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, states that it ta

After being railroaded by a dirty prosecutor, I’d like to dispel one trope: Brandolini’s law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, states that it takes 10x the effort to dispel bullshit as it takes to make it. Therefore, every set of bullshit charges takes a public defender 10x the resources to counteract. Any fair system, every fair system, would have public defenders substantially better funded than prosecutors. I think I speak for a good number of Cook county residents when I say: Bye Felicia.

strawhatguy 3y ago
Personally, I think there should NOT be a prosecutor's office and a public defender's office. It should be the same lawyers, and randomly get the cases for or against. That way the resources are in the same 'pot' if you will. Still have to contend with the fact that a mere accusation colors public perception, and so often gives the advantage to the prosecution in the court of public opinion
- mchannon 3y ago
  Perhaps a good idea in theory, it'd be horrible in practice. Enough "horse-trading" goes on as it is (you go easy on client A, I'll offer client B up to you on this other case on a silver platter; that way we both make our numbers and look good). A better idea would be the appointment of a special "evidence master" who holds and controls all evidence and determines who gets to see what evidence, with a bias toward everybody seeing everything. Right now police turn their evidence over to prosecutors and prosecutors determine what the defense (and public) see. If prosecutors don't want them to have something, they don't get it, and no one's ever going to know. I have real trouble believing any society where prosecutions rely on bluffing and brinksmanship to coerce plea bargains is a fair and just one. There should be no plea bargains. There should also be no peremptory juror challenges. In all honesty, I think AI would be a great candidate to replace both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The playing field would finally be level for once. Judges too.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
Aren't you reinforcing the trope instead of dispelling it?
- mchannon 3y ago
  The trope is that public defenders should be and are funded equivalent to prosecutors’ offices. It’s less untrue in IL than in, say, Louisiana, but it’s still untrue. Prosecutors suffer a self-serving delusion: they’re born on third base thinking they hit a triple.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    Does anyone except crazy prosecutor believe public defenders are funded to any sort of suitable level?
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    Literally nobody thinks that. This whole thread is evidence that this is well known disparity, and one which many people feel strongly about but are unable to correct. I’d argue it’s not correctable: we can’t as a society with lots of crime devote as much money to thwarting prosecutions as we do on apprehension, detention, prosecution etc… The focus should be on crime prevention which can include better education, less restrictive laws, improved policing and crime research.

strawhatguy 3y ago

Personally, I think there should NOT be a prosecutor's office and a public defender's office. It should be the same lawyers, and randomly get the cases for or against. That way the resources are in the same 'pot' if you will. Still have to contend with the fact that a mere accusation colors public perception, and so often gives the advantage to the prosecution in the court of public opinion

mchannon 3y ago
Perhaps a good idea in theory, it'd be horrible in practice. Enough "horse-trading" goes on as it is (you go easy on client A, I'll offer client B up to you on this other case on a silver platter; that way we both make our numbers and look good). A better idea would be the appointment of a special "evidence master" who holds and controls all evidence and determines who gets to see what evidence, with a bias toward everybody seeing everything. Right now police turn their evidence over to prosecutors and prosecutors determine what the defense (and public) see. If prosecutors don't want them to have something, they don't get it, and no one's ever going to know. I have real trouble believing any society where prosecutions rely on bluffing and brinksmanship to coerce plea bargains is a fair and just one. There should be no plea bargains. There should also be no peremptory juror challenges. In all honesty, I think AI would be a great candidate to replace both prosecutors and defense attorneys. The playing field would finally be level for once. Judges too.

MichaelZuo 3y ago

Aren't you reinforcing the trope instead of dispelling it?

mchannon 3y ago
The trope is that public defenders should be and are funded equivalent to prosecutors’ offices. It’s less untrue in IL than in, say, Louisiana, but it’s still untrue. Prosecutors suffer a self-serving delusion: they’re born on third base thinking they hit a triple.
- masklinn 3y ago
  Does anyone except crazy prosecutor believe public defenders are funded to any sort of suitable level?
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Literally nobody thinks that. This whole thread is evidence that this is well known disparity, and one which many people feel strongly about but are unable to correct. I’d argue it’s not correctable: we can’t as a society with lots of crime devote as much money to thwarting prosecutions as we do on apprehension, detention, prosecution etc… The focus should be on crime prevention which can include better education, less restrictive laws, improved policing and crime research.