4 ms·

This seems pretty unreal. Is there a way to donate to this kid's defense fund? You know, I'm really starting to hate prosecutors with a passion. I used to (a

This seems pretty unreal. Is there a way to donate to this kid's defense fund? You know, I'm really starting to hate prosecutors with a passion. I used to (a long time ago) buy into the TV crime show narrative of slimy defense lawyers and shining prosecutor-paladins, but the way the system promotes successful convictions over any semblance of actual justice makes these people look like sociopaths.

bumbledraven 13y ago
Radley Balko has written at length about this subject. For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/the-power-of-the-prosecut_n_2488653.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/the-power-of-the-pr...
hluska 13y ago
I am Canadian and don't understand enough about the US criminal system to comment on this. However, your thoughts mirror some that I've had for a long time, and I'd like to ask some questions and hopefully learn more. Do you think that having elected district attorneys who want to look tough on crime causes this? Or rather, is it a case of actual prosecuting attorneys being graded solely on conviction rate? I've seen some highly dubious prosecutions emerge out of the US over the last few years and, from an outsider's point of view, this is rather terrifying!
- cobrausn 13y ago
  Having only seen the 'wheel of justice' grind people up from a distance, I'm not really sure, but my intuition is that prosecutors make careers out of getting successful convictions, and they absolve themselves of any responsibility by telling themselves that they are merely advocating for the state. So if they do something wrong, it's really just the state at fault. I'm not saying all prosecutors are horrible people who want to ruin lives indiscriminately, and they serve a valuable purpose, I'm just worried about the feedback loop we created.
  - hluska 13y ago
    Good points, especially about how prosecutors may absolve themselves of responsibility by telling themselves that they are advocates for that state. Thanks for your comments - you've given me a lot to think about today!!
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Feedback loop? It's a simple lack of responsibility. They -- the state prosecutors -- have an extremely limited perspective on the work that they do, and furthermore they write it off as "that's how the law works" without considering justice and merit.
- rpicard 13y ago
  Is this sort of thing less common in Canada?
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    Yes, although our Conservative government is doing its best to make our criminal justice system more American, with tough-on-crime posturing, mandatory minimum sentences, an escalation of the war on drugs and so on.
- jtome 13y ago
  I think it would really depend on the local population but I generally think its a bad idea to have elected officials in the criminal justice system. In Alabama they have elected judges and they do things like campaign on how tough on crime they are.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Blaming the prosecutors here seems suspect. Remember, it was a Canadian woman that saw the comment and phoned the police in the first place. And the impetus for keeping him in jail is the same frothy public rage that has been arising in response to school shootings for years now. Don't pretend that Canada doesn't have its share of this contingent of paranoid minivan-driving suburbanites who call for every possible response to any perceived threats to school kids.
  - hluska 13y ago
    I'm not blaming prosecutors, or pretending that Canada doesn't have problems. Rather, I'm asking questions because I don't understand the nuts and bolts of the US justice system. Consider elected District Attorneys. In Canada, Crown Prosecutors are appointed and the position is meant to avoid becoming political. That doesn't always happen, since becoming a CP is often a route to either become a judge (our judges are also appointed), or a politician, but I digress. As another example, under Canadian law, if you're charged with a crime, it starts with the police office involved 'laying an information'. Basically, the police officer will draft a sworn summary of the case and present it to a Justice of the Peace. Then, the JP decides whether there is enough evidence to actually go forward. We don't have the concept of a grand jury, nor do Crown Prosecutors necessarily have to be involved before a charge is formally brought upon the defendant. As for paranoid suburbanites, we have more than our share, and for good reason. Some of our laws (ie - our Young Offenders Act) admittedly leave a little to be desired and some awfully bad people get to walk the streets. For example, my city has a number of extremely violent sex offenders (who the parole board has ruled at an extremely high risk to re-offend) walking around free. Ask me how I feel about my Mom getting into her car alone at night.... Despite sharing a border and coming from the same legal tradition, our criminal systems are dramatically different. Consequently, I can't really comment on the American system because I don't understand it well enough to know where concepts like discretion come from and who has the right to demonstrate discretion.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The difference is that in Canada, all criminal law is federal. Thus, Crown Prosecutors are involved in most criminal cases. In the U.S., most criminal law is state or local. Our federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys, are appointed, but are not generally involved for run of the mill criminal prosecutions because those are the domain of state law. We also use grand juries to return indictments instead of magistrate judges. In theory, this is more democratic, but on the flip side its much more susceptible to small town group think.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Do you think that having elected district attorneys who want to look tough on crime causes this? Absolutely. I'm not too hot on electing judges either. Voters can be pretty stupid in the aggregate, and there's a lot of politicians who pander to that, along with a lot of media outlets. There's a lot of dumb, selfish people out there, and by definition they're easier to manipulate than smart people.
- MBCook 13y ago
  I would guess it's a bit of both elections and CYA. If you lock the kid up, then a) he can't shoot up a school and b) you get to look "tough on school shooters". Some people are mad, some people feel safer, most people will end up forgetting about it. If you don't lock the kid up then you're a) soft on crime (people are scared, gotta do something) and b) there is a chance he'll shoot up the school and your career is dead and you'll get a billion dollar lawsuit against you. Unfortunately locking this kid up is a very sensible decision for the DA. Whatever happens they can say "we were just trying to stop another Columbine" and nothing bad will happen. Basically, there is no almost no upside to understanding this is a joke, but there are potential life-runing downsides.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    > If you don't lock the kid up then you're a) soft on crime (people are scared, gotta do something) and b) there is a chance he'll shoot up the school and your career is dead and you'll get a billion dollar lawsuit against you. Why can't you hold him over night (tough on crime)? Hold an investigation on his operational capabilities, and then let him go when you realize he can't pull it off? > Unfortunately locking this kid up is a very sensible decision for the DA. No it isn't. You swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not do things that are political expedient. There are plenty of ways a DA could prove due diligence without holding the kid in jail.

bumbledraven 13y ago

Radley Balko has written at length about this subject. For example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/the-power-of-the-prosecut_n_2488653.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/the-power-of-the-pr...

hluska 13y ago

I am Canadian and don't understand enough about the US criminal system to comment on this. However, your thoughts mirror some that I've had for a long time, and I'd like to ask some questions and hopefully learn more. Do you think that having elected district attorneys who want to look tough on crime causes this? Or rather, is it a case of actual prosecuting attorneys being graded solely on conviction rate? I've seen some highly dubious prosecutions emerge out of the US over the last few years and, from an outsider's point of view, this is rather terrifying!

cobrausn 13y ago
Having only seen the 'wheel of justice' grind people up from a distance, I'm not really sure, but my intuition is that prosecutors make careers out of getting successful convictions, and they absolve themselves of any responsibility by telling themselves that they are merely advocating for the state. So if they do something wrong, it's really just the state at fault. I'm not saying all prosecutors are horrible people who want to ruin lives indiscriminately, and they serve a valuable purpose, I'm just worried about the feedback loop we created.
- hluska 13y ago
  Good points, especially about how prosecutors may absolve themselves of responsibility by telling themselves that they are advocates for that state. Thanks for your comments - you've given me a lot to think about today!!
- ihsw 13y ago
  Feedback loop? It's a simple lack of responsibility. They -- the state prosecutors -- have an extremely limited perspective on the work that they do, and furthermore they write it off as "that's how the law works" without considering justice and merit.
rpicard 13y ago
Is this sort of thing less common in Canada?
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  Yes, although our Conservative government is doing its best to make our criminal justice system more American, with tough-on-crime posturing, mandatory minimum sentences, an escalation of the war on drugs and so on.
jtome 13y ago
I think it would really depend on the local population but I generally think its a bad idea to have elected officials in the criminal justice system. In Alabama they have elected judges and they do things like campaign on how tough on crime they are.
rayiner 13y ago
Blaming the prosecutors here seems suspect. Remember, it was a Canadian woman that saw the comment and phoned the police in the first place. And the impetus for keeping him in jail is the same frothy public rage that has been arising in response to school shootings for years now. Don't pretend that Canada doesn't have its share of this contingent of paranoid minivan-driving suburbanites who call for every possible response to any perceived threats to school kids.
- hluska 13y ago
  I'm not blaming prosecutors, or pretending that Canada doesn't have problems. Rather, I'm asking questions because I don't understand the nuts and bolts of the US justice system. Consider elected District Attorneys. In Canada, Crown Prosecutors are appointed and the position is meant to avoid becoming political. That doesn't always happen, since becoming a CP is often a route to either become a judge (our judges are also appointed), or a politician, but I digress. As another example, under Canadian law, if you're charged with a crime, it starts with the police office involved 'laying an information'. Basically, the police officer will draft a sworn summary of the case and present it to a Justice of the Peace. Then, the JP decides whether there is enough evidence to actually go forward. We don't have the concept of a grand jury, nor do Crown Prosecutors necessarily have to be involved before a charge is formally brought upon the defendant. As for paranoid suburbanites, we have more than our share, and for good reason. Some of our laws (ie - our Young Offenders Act) admittedly leave a little to be desired and some awfully bad people get to walk the streets. For example, my city has a number of extremely violent sex offenders (who the parole board has ruled at an extremely high risk to re-offend) walking around free. Ask me how I feel about my Mom getting into her car alone at night.... Despite sharing a border and coming from the same legal tradition, our criminal systems are dramatically different. Consequently, I can't really comment on the American system because I don't understand it well enough to know where concepts like discretion come from and who has the right to demonstrate discretion.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The difference is that in Canada, all criminal law is federal. Thus, Crown Prosecutors are involved in most criminal cases. In the U.S., most criminal law is state or local. Our federal prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys, are appointed, but are not generally involved for run of the mill criminal prosecutions because those are the domain of state law. We also use grand juries to return indictments instead of magistrate judges. In theory, this is more democratic, but on the flip side its much more susceptible to small town group think.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Do you think that having elected district attorneys who want to look tough on crime causes this? Absolutely. I'm not too hot on electing judges either. Voters can be pretty stupid in the aggregate, and there's a lot of politicians who pander to that, along with a lot of media outlets. There's a lot of dumb, selfish people out there, and by definition they're easier to manipulate than smart people.
MBCook 13y ago
I would guess it's a bit of both elections and CYA. If you lock the kid up, then a) he can't shoot up a school and b) you get to look "tough on school shooters". Some people are mad, some people feel safer, most people will end up forgetting about it. If you don't lock the kid up then you're a) soft on crime (people are scared, gotta do something) and b) there is a chance he'll shoot up the school and your career is dead and you'll get a billion dollar lawsuit against you. Unfortunately locking this kid up is a very sensible decision for the DA. Whatever happens they can say "we were just trying to stop another Columbine" and nothing bad will happen. Basically, there is no almost no upside to understanding this is a joke, but there are potential life-runing downsides.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > If you don't lock the kid up then you're a) soft on crime (people are scared, gotta do something) and b) there is a chance he'll shoot up the school and your career is dead and you'll get a billion dollar lawsuit against you. Why can't you hold him over night (tough on crime)? Hold an investigation on his operational capabilities, and then let him go when you realize he can't pull it off? > Unfortunately locking this kid up is a very sensible decision for the DA. No it isn't. You swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not do things that are political expedient. There are plenty of ways a DA could prove due diligence without holding the kid in jail.