3 ms·
There is a HUGE difference between what the NYT article is reporting on and the case you describe. Certainly the Massachusetts case you describe is as bad as -
by mcherm 2y ago
There is a HUGE difference between what the NYT article is reporting on and the case you describe.
Certainly the Massachusetts case you describe is as bad as -- probably worse than -- the Texas case described by the NYT article. But the NYT was using that specific case as an illustration; the point of the article is that this is happening REGULARLY, even to a majority of the cases in that county.
One-off failures of justice are unavoidable (because no system can be 100% perfect) but they must be aggressively stamped out to maintain the integrity of the system. System-wide failures mean that the integrity of the system is already gone.
- FilosofumRex 2y agoIt's not one off case at all. Strategic use of seemingly benign charges like trespass, etc by university or private police departments is just the tip of the iceberg. Police typically attaches a few other frivolous charges such as B&E, theft, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. This makes it very expensive to hire private attorneys and court appointed attorneys refuse to go to trial and DA drags it along for year or two before dismissing them on the eve of the trial. In Massachusetts private police enjoys both the un-constitutional qualified immunity doctrine, and exemption from FOIA document requirements, even though they're in uniform, have badges, carry weapons and make arrests. That makes very difficult to litigate this racket and to get any documentary proof. https://casetext.com/case/harvard-crimson-v-president-and-fellows-of-harvard https://casetext.com/case/harvard-crimson-v-president-and-fe...