Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

[Natural Citizen]

Honoré Daumier: A Criminal Case


Jed S. Rakoff

The criminal justice system in the United States today bears little relationship to what the Founding Fathers contemplated, what the movies and television portray, or what the average American believes.

To the Founding Fathers, the critical element in the system was the jury trial, which served not only as a truth-seeking mechanism and a means of achieving fairness, but also as a shield against tyranny. As Thomas Jefferson famously said, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

In 2013, while 8 percent of all federal criminal charges were dismissed (either because of a mistake in fact or law or because the defendant had decided to cooperate), more than 97 percent of the remainder were resolved through plea bargains, and fewer than 3 percent went to trial. The plea bargains largely determined the sentences imposed.

While corresponding statistics for the fifty states combined are not available, it is a rare state where plea bargains do not similarly account for the resolution of at least 95 percent of the felony cases that are not dismissed; and again, the plea bargains usually determine the sentences, sometimes as a matter of law and otherwise as a matter of practice. Furthermore, in both the state and federal systems, the power to determine the terms of the plea bargain is, as a practical matter, lodged largely in the prosecutor, with the defense counsel having little say and the judge even less.

Continued - Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

 

[Anti Federalist]

Now you know why the US gulag has more people in than any other prison system on earth.

This is not even close to justice.

 

[tod evans]

Justice will not be found in their courts.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Was a good read. Was one of those papers that just finds it's way to our browsers sometimes without actually looking for it.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What if those numbers were reversed? What if 97% of people actually knew how to defend themselves and did so? What if only 3% gave up?

What if the docket was full that day and nobody showed up?

 

[Schifference]

I think years ago people were more likely to be arrested for a single crime. Today even a simple arrest had many charges.

 

[phill4paul]

And N.C. just paved the way to "allow" some felony defendants to waive their right of jury trial. SMDH.

RALEIGH, N.C. -
North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday that gives criminal defendants the option to waive their right to a trial by jury.

Tabulated votes showed 53 percent of voters supported the state constitutional amendment.

The amendment, which passed almost unanimously in the General Assembly, changes the state Constitution to allow a defendant in a felony trial in which the state is not seeking the death penalty to waive their right to a jury trial in favor of a "bench trial."

The request would have to be approved by the trial judge.

The only dissenting vote in the General Assembly came from Rep. Michael Speciale (R-New Bern), who questioned the purpose of the amendment.

"I can only reason that its purpose is intended to clear the backlog of cases," Speciale wrote on his website. "On whose backs will this come? The state would like to cut down on costs for providing legal defense to the indigent. Sadly, they will be the ones targeted because disposing of their cases by a judge alone is generally quicker and cheaper than dragging out a jury trial."

Current North Carolina law requires all criminal defendants in felony cases to have a trial by jury. Misdemeanor cases in district court are heard at bench trials.

North Carolina was the only state that does not allow criminal defendants to waive their right to a jury trial.

Proponents of the amendment argued that it could save the court system time and money because bench trials tend to be shorter and less expensive than jury trials. Opponents, however, said bench trials give more power to a single judge compared to trials with 12 jurors.

Critics further pointed to lawyers who may use their position of influence to secure a favorable judge, which is of particular concern in states where voters decide judges and money can be funneled into judicial campaigns.

http://www.wncn.com/story/27272227/amendment-would-allow-felony-defendants-to-waive-jury-trial

 

[otherone]

Justice will not be found in their courts.

The people see Justice as nothing more than the demonstration of Authority.

 

[donnay]

Just us!

 

[DFF]

There are no innocent people. And here's the proof.

We still have a long way to go however. Only a 100% incarceration rate can save us from ourselves.

 

[presence]

I was summoned to court one time for "rear ending" the car in front of me. I was first hit from behind by a "hit and run"; so I was the middle car and the only one in court to place blame on.

Judge suggested I plea to a "broken tail light"

I said outloud in the courtroom:

"Well buddy if what I'm supposed to do is stand up here and lie to you;
tell you that my tail light was busted....
I guess I'll lie and do as I'm told,
but truthfully my tail lights were fine.
What do you want me to say Your Honor?"

He moved the court into private chambers, case dismissed; I walked out the back door.

 

[2orb]

I think years ago people were more likely to be arrested for a single crime. Today even a simple arrest had many charges.

This is by design. The multiple charges are bargaining chips to be used to elicit a plea agreement. The prosecutors fill their conviction quotas all the while doing you a "favor" for letting you "plea" to a lesser penalty.

 

[osan]

Now you know why the US gulag has more people in than any other prison system on earth.

This is not even close to justice.

Nor will we have justice ever in our lifetimes.

The unpleasant and ever so politically-incorrect truth is the likelihood that we are lost until, if, and only if the day comes we materially disable the agents of tyranny. Every last one of them. There are those who go endlessly on as parrots about how violence is never the right answer.

You know what? Amputation of one's leg to the hip is also never the answer for a splinter in one's foot. Never, that is, until one has ignored it and gangrene has set in, threatening life itself. Then, all of a miraculous sudden, amputation becomes the very picture of propriety in answer to the pesky little splinter to which the foot's owner should have attended when it was "nothing".

Time to put away the ill-reasoned normative ideals of he progressives' masturbatory fantasies. Yes, that is right: a goodly number of people here who claim to value liberty have, in fact, drunk the progressive kool-aid in some measure, apparently afraid of appearing a certain way if they advocate that which is necessary (amputation) once the leg is rotted just below the hip joint.

I submit the American leg is rotten and if action is not taken on sufficient scale and of sufficient nature, before long American life will be lost. It's lost anyway, so really kiddies, what is it that you all think you have to lose by avoiding that which seems unpleasant? How many more infants will we tolerate being blown up in their cradles? How many more Kelly's will we see beaten to death by cops? How many more people of the wrong racial makeup will we idly stand by to watch as BART cops put bullets into the backs of their heads while in the prone position, handcuffed?

For how much longer are you going to lie to yourself and others, saying that we must work "within the system"? Really? Do you REALLY believe that? Not that it COULD work... sure it could... pink elephants COULD fly out of my ass, too... but that it WILL? Do you really and truly believe that voting and protesting and lobbying are going to fix what needs fixing in America? Or are you lying to yourself... softly telling yourself those pretty lies that allow you to feel better about yourself, your existence, your world, and let you sleep at night? Perhaps you need less sleep.

The bit that aggravates me to no end is that whenever I see people act, they ALWAYS do so for the wrong reasons, thereby leading them to wrong action. Ferguson is but the most recent example of how in the end people go full retard at the moment of truth. Had those outraged people hunted those cops down and dispensed immediate acts of justice in defense against what we know will be the attacks upon that very community in the times yet to come, I would have at least been able to respect them. But no. They acted in stereotypical fashion - you can furnish your own words to describe them and their behaviors. They went out and pillaged - destroyed their own place, affecting NOTHING of those who deserved to be the actual targets of their ire. Nicely done, ye fucking idiots. Your self-loathing has once again saved the day!

So let us dispense with the bullshit, for the sake of decency and pity. If you are not willing to face the cold and ugly truth that both legs of this land are gangrenous to the hips, then don't talk about liberty at all. Just leave it lie fallow and unattended. Let the nation fall into unrecoverable perdition. Better that than to make so cruel a mockery of yourself by positing that just one more band-aid will do the trick... not to lose hope... work WITH the system, not against it. Seriously, this is ultra-played, like a clapped-out old street whore where there is nothing left of which to partake that won't leave you feeling cheap and ill.

Had the men of 1776 shared your psychotic beliefs that words and banners and chanting would free them from the king's tyranny, few of us would ever have been born and those who would have, would be sporting a nifty English accent and would have matching sets of "his majesty" and "her majesty" knee pads. But thankfully, they were not party to such spectacularly failed beliefs and rather than talk talk talk, they shot shot shot. You have those men to thank for the land where, ravaged as it is, you are still able to express your contrary opinions with at least a reasonable expectation of not having the Cheka show up at your door at 3 AM. If you REALLY give a tinker's shit about that, you should at least cut the crap with the nonsense of non-violence being the only rightful option. Things are now way beyond that. It is time for action of substance, starting with massive civil disobedience and escalating upward from there as circumstance warrants.

I am disobedient every single day and I make it a point to advertise that fact any time I am in public. When in places like NY/NJ I get some shit for it, and just over a year ago a almost ended up in a cell. But I never wince and I never shrink away. I may choose by battles at times, but that is not the same thing. No sense in getting myself killed for nothing. But I at least walk about with my middle finger displayed in defiance. It may not be that much, but it's a lot more than I see in most other people. But yes, I am also guilty of much the same sin. But at least I admit it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think the American Revolution was worthwhile. Justified; sure. But I don't think the British tyranny was to the degree necessary that violence would have been the right course of action.

Now, modern Amerika... that's far worse, but really, overthrowing a democratically elected system isn't going to work. As long as people want the system, violence cannot fix it.