• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jailed For Years Without Trial, Kills Himself

LOL, that post is unsubstantiated half truths at best. Yes, if the defense files a motion, while the motion is being considered it tolls the clock.

In this case, the great bulk of the delay is the prosecutor, years after the indictment, repeatedly going to court and claiming he's not ready for trial and asking for a "one week" delay, which because of the backlog in court turns into 6 or 8 weeks, until 10 or 12 "one week" delays turns into years of delays.

Article 30 NY Criminal Procedure Law Timeliness of Prosecutions
 
Once again you seem to not understand the terms of felony probation. In many states, if you are on felony probation you are ineligible for bail on any future felony charges (while on probation). Sheesh, the effort a few are going through to twist and misunderstand in order to carry their arguments is astounding.

Goodness, you might want to read the story before making assertions. Again, from the New Yorker:

Browder was charged with grand larceny. He told me that his friends drove the truck and that he had only watched, but he figured that he had no defense, and so he pleaded guilty. The judge gave him probation and youthful offender” status, which insured that he wouldn’t have a criminal record.

OK, so you've made stuff up about the defense filings and the charges while he was a juvenile. What other facts do you need to make up to defend the indefensible?
 
Lmao, what I believe. Alright, let's look at the post, shall we? Seeing as how you don't actually have a rebuttal of your own. On post 116:

1. It has absolutely nothing to do with your pompous and unsubstantiated claims that his family should have been able to afford it.
2. The motions filed in his case requested 1 week at most though there were various, even if you were to group them all together, it wouldn't come close to 3 years in prison.
3. Unless you're stating that the NYer is wrong, and some guy on the internet is right, there is nothing to discuss here.

Do you have any other non-arguments you'd like to present? Or are you ready to show his family's financial statements so that we can judge your claim that they should have been able to afford it?

Article 30 NY Criminal Procedure Law Timeliness of Prosecutions

If the family can't afford $300 they simply aren't living in NY, at least not in a legal home with actual water and electricity. This is not a case of can't afford, but unwilling to afford.
 
Those are statutes of limitation, unrelated to the speedy trial provisions. Try again.

If not, quote the part you find relevant. I'm not doing the research for you.

You could at least read the title:

TIMELINESS OF PROSECUTIONS AND SPEEDY TRIAL
 
This wasn't TN. See post number 116.

Quote that post and tell me the part you find persuasive. While you're at it, please post a cite supporting the baseless assertions in it. They might be true, but some random anonymous person on DP isn't actually a "source" for anything other than this random person's opinion, backed by nothing.
 
Just keep repeating the same lies and hope they stick through repetition, it's not working for you. Once again, neither bail nor plea bargains are legally defined as extortion or entrapment. No matter how you word the semantic games, reality thwarts your effort.

LMAO, oh okay, so the definitions I posted don't work for you. We get it. You're not a fan of polls, data, statistics, or definitions. Anyways, I'll wait for that financial information showing they could have afforded it. :)
 
You could at least read the title:

OK, the general limit is six months. We all know that. What else you got?

Random cites to the law isn't an argument. You'll have to make an actual case.

You claimed it was delayed because of defense filings. You were wrong. Sorry!
 
Goodness, you might want to read the story before making assertions. Again, from the New Yorker:



OK, so you've made stuff up about the defense filings and the charges while he was a juvenile. What other facts do you need to make up to defend the indefensible?

You could at least understand what you're talking about before you make stuff up. His prior juvenile record is not expunged until he successfully completes probation without further charges.
 
LMAO, oh okay, so the definitions I posted don't work for you. We get it. You're not a fan of polls, data, statistics, or definitions. Anyways, I'll wait for that financial information showing they could have afforded it. :)

The dictionary definitions you posted don't apply and you know it. Those words have definitions in law and the law does not include plea bargaining or bail in either. Your trip into semantics still isn't working for you.
 
You could at least understand what you're talking about before you make stuff up. His prior juvenile record is not expunged until he successfully completes probation without further charges.

Do you have a cite that charges later dropped or charges proved unfounded at trial will cause the juvenile record to be a part of his permanent record?

You've been caught making up stuff repeatedly so sorry if I don't accept your "word" on this....
 

Good grief, thanks for posting the evidence contradicting your claims:

Three Years on Rikers Without Trial - The New Yorker

This rule stipulates that all felony cases (except homicides) must be ready for trial within six months of arraignment, or else the charges can be dismissed. In practice, however, this time limit is subject to technicalities. The clock stops for many reasons—for example, when defense attorneys submit motions before trial—so that the amount of time that is officially held to have elapsed can be wildly different from the amount of time that really has. In 2011, seventy-four per cent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months.

and here it is:

1. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision three, a motion made
pursuant to paragraph (e) of subdivision one of section 170.30 or
paragraph (g) of subdivision one of section 210.20 must be granted where
the people are not ready for trial within:
(a) six months of the commencement of a criminal action wherein a
defendant is accused of one or more offenses, at least one of which is a
felony;

If the family can't afford $300 they simply aren't living in NY, at least not in a legal home with actual water and electricity. This is not a case of can't afford, but unwilling to afford.

So you have NOTHING to show that they should have been able to afford it? Good.
 
You referred me to post #116. That's the statute you keep repeating, but can't tell me what part is relevant.

This isn't even fun anymore. You're not even pretending to make an honest case. I've got better things to do than argue with a troll who can't make a case without inventing facts.

He simply doesn't know. He just posted the link supporting the claim that the trial should have been ready within 6 months.
 
OK, the general limit is six months. We all know that. What else you got?

Random cites to the law isn't an argument. You'll have to make an actual case.

You claimed it was delayed because of defense filings. You were wrong. Sorry!

You know, you should actually read the link:

4. In computing the time within which the people must be ready for
trial pursuant to subdivisions one and two, the following periods must
be excluded:
(a) a reasonable period of delay resulting from other proceedings
concerning the defendant, including but not limited to: proceedings for
the determination of competency and the period during which defendant is
incompetent to stand trial; demand to produce; request for a bill of
particulars; pre-trial motions; appeals; trial of other charges; and the
period during which such matters are under consideration by the court
;
or
(b) the period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the
court at the request of, or with the consent of, the defendant or his
counsel. The court must grant such a continuance only if it is satisfied
that postponement is in the interest of justice, taking into account the
public interest in the prompt dispositions of criminal charges
. A
defendant without counsel must not be deemed to have consented to a
continuance unless he has been advised by the court of his rights under
these rules and the effect of his consent; or
 
You know, you should actually read the link:

So 3 years is a reasonable period. Yes? I just want to know how far you'll go in this absurd argument.
 
Do you have a cite that charges later dropped or charges proved unfounded at trial will cause the juvenile record to be a part of his permanent record?

You've been caught making up stuff repeatedly so sorry if I don't accept your "word" on this....

Why is that first an issue for you? It makes no sense. You think he should be given bail AFTER the charges are dropped? You're putting the cart after the horse.

As to that last, no, I haven't and you have no cause to make the accusation other than to try to repair your own argument.
 
You referred me to post #116. That's the statute you keep repeating, but can't tell me what part is relevant.

This isn't even fun anymore. You're not even pretending to make an honest case. I've got better things to do than argue with a troll who can't make a case without inventing facts.

I did, and it was there for you to read, but then you couldn't even be bothered to read the title of the statute. You then falsely claimed it wasn't about a speedy trial, but dropped that pretty quickly when I posted the title, didn't you?

The better things you have to do is to flee your own argument.
 
Good grief, thanks for posting the evidence contradicting your claims:

Three Years on Rikers Without Trial - The New Yorker



and here it is:





So you have NOTHING to show that they should have been able to afford it? Good.

Hilarious, you quote a source that says precisely what post #116 said while still maintaining it was all made up by some internet dude.

This rule stipulates that all felony cases (except homicides) must be ready for trial within six months of arraignment, or else the charges can be dismissed. In practice, however, this time limit is subject to technicalities. The clock stops for many reasons—for example, when defense attorneys submit motions before trial—so that the amount of time that is officially held to have elapsed can be wildly different from the amount of time that really has. In 2011, seventy-four per cent of felony cases in the Bronx were older than six months.
 
So 3 years is a reasonable period. Yes? I just want to know how far you'll go in this absurd argument.

I don't think it is, but the law on speedy trials in NY says it can be. As explained to those who actually read the law, and to some extent the links you just posted, there are a multitude of factors that control the timing of the trial.
 
Kalief Browder, a young man from New York City who had gained national renown in recent years as a symbol of America's broken criminal justice system, took his own life this weekend, according to a report from The New Yorker. He was 22.

The Death Of Kalief Browder Is An 'American Tragedy Almost Beyond Words'

They broke his mind keeping him in solitary. He was too young to survive such torture. RIP. They won't hurt you anymore. What can I say...I'm not afraid of ISIS, I'm not afraid of Russia, I'm not afraid of Boko Haram, I'm not afraid of parachute jump. I'm afraid of our American Justice System. There are many people responsible for this young death. Unfortunately, l doubt that any of them will ever pay a price.

They got his parents to sign away the right to a speedy trial and then just kept delaying the trial because he kept insisting on having one. This kind of abuse of the process is common.

Having said that, connecting his eventual suicide over 2 years after his release with his experience in jail is strained at best. He didn't sound like someone whose spirit had been broken in his interviews afterwards.
 
Hilarious, you quote a source that says precisely what post #116 said while still maintaining it was all made up by some internet dude.

Hilarious? I posted it because I expected to be intellectually efficient enough to do more than pretend you understood the source. It was THE PEOPLE who asked for those extensions, not the defendant. Continuing to blame the defendant for a backlog which was out of his hands and a prosecution which wasn't ready to go to trial after even 2 years just makes you look desperate for something to grasp on. Are you trying to purposely insult the intelligence of the adults here? Because that's what you're doing.

1. You're expecting us to believe that 3 years falls within the scope of "reasonable" (post 167).
2. You've argued - without ANY evidence - that his family should have been able to afford $300. When asked to substantiate this, you've done nothing but run (post 154).
3. You've denied that 6 months is how long the prosecution had to make a case and bring this all to trial. Then contradicted this with your own source (post 154).

You've essentially claimed that it was the defendant's fault that the system took too long; that the judicial system's understanding of 'reasonable' waiting period for a trial is 6x as long as stated within the law. Finally, even though EVERYONE - except CanadaJohn, the oblivious racist - seems to be in agreement that the system ****ed up, you're contending that this can all be explained away by blaming the one person in this situation who had the least power. You're either trolling the hell out of us or expecting to be as consistently dishonest as yourself. Which is it?
 
Hilarious? I posted it because I expected to be intellectually efficient enough to do more than pretend you understood the source. It was THE PEOPLE who asked for those extensions, not the defendant. Continuing to blame the defendant for a backlog which was out of his hands and a prosecution which wasn't ready to go to trial after even 2 years just makes you look desperate for something to grasp on. Are you trying to purposely insult the intelligence of the adults here? Because that's what you're doing.

1. You're expecting us to believe that 3 years falls within the scope of "reasonable" (post 167).
2. You've argued - without ANY evidence - that his family should have been able to afford $300. When asked to substantiate this, you've done nothing but run (post 154).
3. You've denied that 6 months is how long the prosecution had to make a case and bring this all to trial. Then contradicted this with your own source (post 154).

You've essentially claimed that it was the defendant's fault that the system took too long; that the judicial system's understanding of 'reasonable' waiting period for a trial is 6x as long as stated within the law. Finally, even though EVERYONE - except CanadaJohn, the oblivious racist - seems to be in agreement that the system ****ed up, you're contending that this can all be explained away by blaming the one person in this situation who had the least power. You're either trolling the hell out of us or expecting to be as consistently dishonest as yourself. Which is it?

Great, just keep repeating the same old busted argument, ignore where you've got it wrong, let that just drop away and then retailor your argument and mine. How dishonest.

The fact of the matter is there is a speedy trial requirement written into the law. It lays a basic timeline of what constitutes a speedy trial and also informs of exceptions. MANY exceptions and events that legally stop the clock. Despite your assumption the prosecutor's actions delayed the trial, the law does not allow that except in very limited cases (none mentioned here). Are you seriously proposing his defense attorney filed no pre-trial motions. filed no motions at all (both are clock stoppers)?

Considering the COL in NY and the fact these are foster parents running a foster home, $300 is doable for an emergency. But hey, no proof would be good enough for you. You desperately do not want your argument to be shown for what it is, broken.

Your rewriting and/or tortured reading of my posts which you reference shows you simply run away from clear language that you cannot rebut.
 
Back
Top Bottom