• 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

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.

Lmao - YOU posted the evidence that 6 months is how long the people have the make a case and then posted some exception hoping that we'd all ignore the fact that even AFTER 3 YEARS, the prosecution still didn't have a case. When you go down that line it's absolutely impossible to not see you as anything other than dishonest. You yourself agreed that 3 years does not fit a definition of REASONABLE and now you're sitting here telling us that we've been dishonest? Who are you trying to fool?

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)?

It's obvious that you don't even understand the very links you keep arguing support your points:

On January 28, 2011, Browder’s two-hundred-and-fifty-eighth day in jail, he was brought back to the courthouse once again. This time, the prosecutor said, “The People are not ready. We are requesting one week.” The next court date set by the judge—March 9th—was not one week away but six. As it happened, Browder didn’t go to trial anytime that year. An index card in the court file explains:

June 23, 2011: People not ready, request 1 week.
August 24, 2011: People not ready, request 1 day.
November 4, 2011: People not ready, prosecutor on trial, request 2 weeks.
December 2, 2011: Prosecutor on trial, request January 3rd.

Continuing to claim that the prosecutors actions did not delay the trial is ABSOLUTE DISHONESTY at this point.

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.

So no evidence period? Good. Just conjecture. I figured.

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

It's almost like you refuse to read anything which consistently refutes your statements.
 
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.

I appreciate your efforts here. I just have to say it's a losing battle trying to counter irrational emotion, the typical liberal base for all arguments, with facts and the law - many liberals just haven't the mental capacity to understand the concept of facts and law and so they resort to their base emotions.
 
Incidentally, Browder's claims about his experience at Rikers Island are consistent with findings from a recent report commissioned by the New York City Board of Correction. The report, obtained by The Associated Press, notes that the use of force by staff has more than tripled from 2004 to 2013, from seven incidents of force per 100 inmates, to almost 25. Additionally, the number of self-mutilation and suicide attempts by Rikers inmates have increased by 75 percent from 2007 to 2012. According to the report, 40 percent of the city jail’s 12,200 inmates are mentally ill, and many of these inmates are placed in solitary confinement "holes" as punishment.

Kalief Browder's Lawyer Paul Prestia Says Incarceration Was 'Direct Cause' Of Client's Suicide

Teen Thrown In Violent New York Jail For Years Without Ever Having Been Convicted
 
I appreciate your efforts here. I just have to say it's a losing battle trying to counter irrational emotion, the typical liberal base for all arguments, with facts and the law - many liberals just haven't the mental capacity to understand the concept of facts and law and so they resort to their base emotions.
You called humans "less than human" and generalized an entire race because of one video. That's irrational emotion and the exact opposite of facts. You're projecting in a MAJOR way.
 
You called humans "less than human" and generalized an entire race because of one video. That's irrational emotion and the exact opposite of facts. You're projecting in a MAJOR way.

Believe it or not, this thread is not about me or your bastardized view of my posts. Do you have anything to say related to the OP or are you simply going to continue to troll?
 
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.

Posting a cite to a statute that runs 3,107 words, and fills 5 single space pages in Word, 10 font, with no paragraph breaks, and asking someone you're debating to read the entire statute and figure out what part or parts YOU think is relevant is trolling behavior.
 
Believe it or not, this thread is not about me or your bastardized view of my posts. Do you have anything to say related to the OP or are you simply going to continue to troll?
Interesting. You go on a rant about liberals and then criticize me for going "off topic". This is now the third time you've displayed hypocrisy.
 
This video says more about blacks in America than it does about the American Justice System. Americans should be glad these less than humans are off the streets.

The video tells you alot about blacks in America? Every single one - really john? From that video you now have a firm grasp on what the typical African American is - is that so?

Are you aware that some of the members on this site are African American?
 
Interesting. You go on a rant about liberals and then criticize me for going "off topic". This is now the third time you've displayed hypocrisy.

He is putrid and disgusting. That statement of his was racist pure and simple.
 
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.

People can often be good actors when it comes to that kind of thing. I've seen it first hand from a good friend who blew his head off with a shotgun. No one had a clue, and I'd spent 4 days with him and some other guys on a hunting trip just two months before it happened.
 
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)?

You're trolling again, deliberately ignoring any evidence to contradict what you make up. I quoted this from the New Yorker. Tell me how many of these are from the defense...

This time, the prosecutor said, “The People are not ready. We are requesting one week.” The next court date set by the judge—March 9th—was not one week away but six. As it happened, Browder didn’t go to trial anytime that year. An index card in the court file explains:

June 23, 2011: People not ready, request 1 week.

August 24, 2011: People not ready, request 1 day.

November 4, 2011: People not ready, prosecutor on trial, request 2 weeks.

December 2, 2011: Prosecutor on trial, request January 3rd.
....
June 29, 2012: People not ready, request one week.

September 28, 2012: People not ready, request two weeks.

November 2, 2012: People not ready, request one week.

December 14, 2012: People not ready, request one week.

This has also been addressed:

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.

You don't know that it was only $300, or that they could afford $300 if that was the amount, and the point was made moot when bail was revoked two months into his 3 years in jail without trial.
 
You know, you should actually read the link:

You're right, I didn't read the link because I don't care to do your work for you.

That's a nice quote, now how does that relate to the case? I've posted evidence of at least 10 delays by the prosecution, that cumulatively delayed the trial well over a year. I've said the law counts 10 "one week" requests as 10 weeks against the 6 months, even if the actual delay is 6 weeks or 8 weeks or 10 weeks. What part of the story indicates the bulk of the delays were due to defense motions? And if the defense did request delays (which you haven't shown), in part because he's got 100s of active cases, how does it show the system works for the poor in any way at all?
 
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.

Goodness. The problem is how the law actually works. That the law allows a juvenile to be held in jail for 3 years without trial, and that pre-trial detentions of that length and often longer are common, is a huge part of the problem in NYC. Part of the injustice in this case is the length of time held without trail, due in large part because of delays requested by the prosecutor, was so great that what some on DP saw as a "reasonable" offer was for him to plead guilty to a crime we have to assume he didn't commit and to commute his sentence to the YEARS already spent behind bars.
 
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.

Excerpted from a WaPo article:

In prison, Browder clung to his sanity — barely.

But upon gaining his freedom, he seemed to slip between an effort to regain his life and the darkness that threatened to take over.

He had allies everywhere. An anonymous donor offered to pay for his community college education. He met with Rosie O’Donnell and Jay Z.

...Gonnerman, the journalist who visited with Browder several times during her reporting for the New Yorker, noted that he had recently been spending his time in and out of mental health institutions.

After a visit with Browder in the psych ward at St. Barnabas Hospital in January, Gonnerman described him as “gaunt, restless and deeply paranoid.” She added, "He had recently thrown out his brand-new television, he explained, “because it was watching me.”

At a gathering in the family home Saturday, the family struggled to understand what went wrong, according to Gonnerman. Was it the anti-psychotic medication that exacerbated his suicidal ideation? Or had he stopped taking the drugs? Kalief Browder’s suicide and the high cost of violence and delay at Rikers - The Washington Post
 
I appreciate your efforts here. I just have to say it's a losing battle trying to counter irrational emotion, the typical liberal base for all arguments, with facts and the law - many liberals just haven't the mental capacity to understand the concept of facts and law and so they resort to their base emotions.

LMMFAO. Right, liberals are relying on base emotions. Us liberals point out prosecution requests for delays of "one week" are allowed by the law to count one week against the 6 months even if the actual delay is 6 weeks, or 8 weeks or 10 weeks. We quote from the story, repeatedly, that shows at least 10 such delays by the prosecution, running up delays well over a year. CB ignores this, literally, and says it's all the defense's fault, cites nothing, pure conjecture, baseless speculation. And he's the one relying on facts...... :doh

But no one is surprised what side you're taking here.
 
Last edited:
This thing is very complicated, but two things struck me right away. First, that Browder has pleaded guilty to grand larceny for his part in the earlier joyriding incident, and received probation. That meant he was already on thin ice. But for the probation violation, his family might have managed to come up with enough money to bail him out, and things would probably have taken a different course. Second, a grand jury indicted him, and I wonder what evidence it considered. It seems very odd that it would have indicted him for a felony on nothing more than one man's claim.
 
This thing is very complicated, but two things struck me right away. First, that Browder has pleaded guilty to grand larceny for his part in the earlier joyriding incident, and received probation. That meant he was already on thin ice. But for the probation violation, his family might have managed to come up with enough money to bail him out, and things would probably have taken a different course. Second, a grand jury indicted him, and I wonder what evidence it considered. It seems very odd that it would have indicted him for a felony on nothing more than one man's claim.

The indictment doesn't surprise me. Not even a little bit. Look at all the innocent people that have been exonerated after yrs in prison based on false testimony or weak DNA evidence. Many a man has been convicted on much less evidence. The system is broken. When a prosecutor what's to get ya....guess what....they probably will.

And unfortunately the ones that are usually the one exonerated are the poor people that can't afford to pay for the hot shot lawyers. Afluant people dont get put in jail on bogus charges/weak eveidence. Heck, afluance is now a defense to NOT got to prison.
 
Last edited:
The indictment doesn't surprise me. Not even a little bit. Look at all the innocent people that have been exonerated after yrs in prison based on false testimony or weak DNA evidence. Many a man has been convicted on much less evidence. The system is broken. When a prosecutor what's to get ya....guess what....they probably will.

And unfortunately the ones that are usually the one exonerated are the poor people that can't afford to pay for the hot shot lawyers. Afluant people dont get put in jail on bogus charges/weak eveidence. Heck, afluance is now a defense to NOT got to prison.

As a lawyer who has done a little criminal work, I think you have some serious misconceptions. It's not the job of a prosecutor's office to "get" anyone--in fact that would violate their ethical duty--but rather to see that justice is done. And they only spend time prosecuting the cases they've evaluated and think are pretty strong. Many of the people arrested by police are never prosecuted, for a long list of reasons that may make the case against them weak or even non-existent. A few prosecutors of the many thousands around the U.S. are probably bastards, but any that I have ever met have been fair-minded and professional.

Everything about criminal law in the U.S. is weighted in favor of the defendant, and against the prosecution. Every defendant starts out with the legal presumption that he is innocent, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every single element[/] of any and all crimes he is charged with. His answers to any questions police may ask before he has been given the Miranda will not be admissible evidence in court. Any defendant charged with any crime, even the least misdemeanor, has the constitutional right to a jury trial, and to a lawyer if he cannot afford one. A great many people who are guilty as sin go free because in most states, the jury's verdict has to be unanimous. And sometimes there is that one juror that will not vote to convict, no matter how much proof of guilt there is.

Because a case usually will not go to trial unless there is strong evidence the defendant is guilty of the offenses charged, it should not be surprising that juries find many of those defendants guilty. And it's seldom because they don't get a competent defense. There are a number of constitutional limits the prosecution has to comply with in ANY case, and they apply with exactly the same force whether the defendant is a vagrant or a millionaire. Maybe you have been watching too many TV and movie versions of how things work in court--most of them are utter nonsense.

You're also overlooking the fact that if a judge allows anything at trial that is unfair to the defendant--e.g. jury instructions where something in the wording might tend to bias a juror against the defendant--the conviction may well be overturned on appeal. The outrage in this case is the lack of a speedy trial, and I'd be interested to know if there have been suits against New York for violating the Sixth Amendment right. There have always been and will always be isolated miscarriages of justice, because people can never be perfect. But anyone who takes a case like this one as the rule rather than the exception just doesn't know what he's talking about. Things sure as hell do not work anything like that here in L.A.

By the way, what is our Justice Dept. doing about the kind of misconduct that apparently takes place in those jails? If there is a pattern of guards abusing prisoners there, not only the guards but also the officials in charge of the jails can be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws. Prison guards can use only as much as is reasonable to maintain order--when they go beyond that, they are committing federal crimes. In one case--also in New York--a cop was given a life sentence for causing the death of a suspect in the station by sodomizing him brutally with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger.
 
The video tells you alot about blacks in America? Every single one - really john? From that video you now have a firm grasp on what the typical African American is - is that so?

Are you aware that some of the members on this site are African American?

Did you actually comprehend what I posted or are you like many who simply, dishonestly, label opinions you find uncomfortable to consider as racism?

I expanded on my view in post #122. I have no intention of continuing to do so.

And yes, I know there are some African Americans on this site. Those who know me and know my views don't consider me a racist and don't toss around such labels against fellow members as a debating tactic.
 
Did you actually comprehend what I posted or are you like many who simply, dishonestly, label opinions you find uncomfortable to consider as racism?

I expanded on my view in post #122. I have no intention of continuing to do so.

And yes, I know there are some African Americans on this site. Those who know me and know my views don't consider me a racist and don't toss around such labels against fellow members as a debating tactic.

Hey CJ, your average post is so thoughtful and logical that even if you misspoke, I would take it as that or at least ask you what you meant instead of issuing a knee jerk indictment that you're a racist. I would consider any accusations trolling.
 
As a lawyer who has done a little criminal work, I think you have some serious misconceptions. It's not the job of a prosecutor's office to "get" anyone--in fact that would violate their ethical duty--but rather to see that justice is done. And they only spend time prosecuting the cases they've evaluated and think are pretty strong. Many of the people arrested by police are never prosecuted, for a long list of reasons that may make the case against them weak or even non-existent. A few prosecutors of the many thousands around the U.S. are probably bastards, but any that I have ever met have been fair-minded and professional.

Everything about criminal law in the U.S. is weighted in favor of the defendant, and against the prosecution. Every defendant starts out with the legal presumption that he is innocent, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every single element[/] of any and all crimes he is charged with. His answers to any questions police may ask before he has been given the Miranda will not be admissible evidence in court. Any defendant charged with any crime, even the least misdemeanor, has the constitutional right to a jury trial, and to a lawyer if he cannot afford one. A great many people who are guilty as sin go free because in most states, the jury's verdict has to be unanimous. And sometimes there is that one juror that will not vote to convict, no matter how much proof of guilt there is.

Because a case usually will not go to trial unless there is strong evidence the defendant is guilty of the offenses charged, it should not be surprising that juries find many of those defendants guilty. And it's seldom because they don't get a competent defense. There are a number of constitutional limits the prosecution has to comply with in ANY case, and they apply with exactly the same force whether the defendant is a vagrant or a millionaire. Maybe you have been watching too many TV and movie versions of how things work in court--most of them are utter nonsense.

You're also overlooking the fact that if a judge allows anything at trial that is unfair to the defendant--e.g. jury instructions where something in the wording might tend to bias a juror against the defendant--the conviction may well be overturned on appeal. The outrage in this case is the lack of a speedy trial, and I'd be interested to know if there have been suits against New York for violating the Sixth Amendment right. There have always been and will always be isolated miscarriages of justice, because people can never be perfect. But anyone who takes a case like this one as the rule rather than the exception just doesn't know what he's talking about. Things sure as hell do not work anything like that here in L.A.

By the way, what is our Justice Dept. doing about the kind of misconduct that apparently takes place in those jails? If there is a pattern of guards abusing prisoners there, not only the guards but also the officials in charge of the jails can be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws. Prison guards can use only as much as is reasonable to maintain order--when they go beyond that, they are committing federal crimes. In one case--also in New York--a cop was given a life sentence for causing the death of a suspect in the station by sodomizing him brutally with the wooden handle of a toilet plunger.


All of this seems like the perfect justice system to me. Lawyers are some of the most devious and diabolical people on the planet. Yes I know it doesn't work like on TV. But you can not tell me that the system works the same for poor people as it does for rich people. Never has and never will. Even if you simply look at the numbers. A guy hires a lawyer after he gets arrested. The lawyer does his due diligence and arrives at whatever conclusion he get to. A poor guy gets a public defender who is working 15 or 20 other cases at the same time. That public defender is not going to be as tenacious on the poor guys case. It's just simply impossible. I've witnessed that several time. Is a poor guys EVER going to be able to claim afluance to get his kid off on a under age drunk driving accident when people are maimed or killed......I don't think so. That poor kid is going to jail. He's not going to get probation and community service.
 
Did you actually comprehend what I posted or are you like many who simply, dishonestly, label opinions you find uncomfortable to consider as racism?

I expanded on my view in post #122. I have no intention of continuing to do so.

And yes, I know there are some African Americans on this site. Those who know me and know my views don't consider me a racist and don't toss around such labels against fellow members as a debating tactic.

It's pretty simple. If you don't want to be called a racist, don't make broad generalizations about "blacks in America" from some videos of individual blacks already arrested and in prison. It's nonsense, and when called on it you somehow brought in Ferguson and Chicago... wft???

And then don't proceed for the entire rest of the thread to take every opportunity to blame the defendant, his family, his defense team, after several cite damning facts that show at least a large part of the problem was, for example, a prosecutor who delayed the trial for over a year because he repeatedly (at least 11 times) claimed that he's not ready to present a case that consists of the testimony of one guy, and a system that allows a "one week" delay that stretches to 6 or 8 or 12 weeks PER REQUEST to count as only ONE week against the 6 month statutory time limit. And then don't express amazement that a guy who had no history of mental illness before jail and 2 years of solitary, then spent the years after release in and out of psychiatric wards and on psychiatric drugs, killed himself and that his experiences in prison contributed to that.
 
People can often be good actors when it comes to that kind of thing. I've seen it first hand from a good friend who blew his head off with a shotgun. No one had a clue, and I'd spent 4 days with him and some other guys on a hunting trip just two months before it happened.

The fact is that we just don't know anything about what else was going on in his life.
 
It's pretty simple. If you don't want to be called a racist, don't make broad generalizations about "blacks in America" from some videos of individual blacks already arrested and in prison. It's nonsense, and when called on it you somehow brought in Ferguson and Chicago... wft???

And then don't proceed for the entire rest of the thread to take every opportunity to blame the defendant, his family, his defense team, after several cite damning facts that show at least a large part of the problem was, for example, a prosecutor who delayed the trial for over a year because he repeatedly (at least 11 times) claimed that he's not ready to present a case that consists of the testimony of one guy, and a system that allows a "one week" delay that stretches to 6 or 8 or 12 weeks PER REQUEST to count as only ONE week against the 6 month statutory time limit. And then don't express amazement that a guy who had no history of mental illness before jail and 2 years of solitary, then spent the years after release in and out of psychiatric wards and on psychiatric drugs, killed himself and that his experiences in prison contributed to that.

So, to cut to the chase, you'd prefer I simply accept your version of events and your interpretation of those events without question or counter argument. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of debate - that seems reasonable since you didn't understand the point I was making in my original post and your interpretation of my views has gone downhill ever since.

Perhaps you'd be better off if you simply expressed your own views and counter arguments and stopped trying to misinterpret other posters' thoughts and words to suit your agenda and/or straw men you'd like to attack.

Please feel free to respond, but I'm done engaging with you on this subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom