• 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!

Three Ways Courts Screw the Innocent Into Pleading Guilty

There are pros and cons to both, and I doubt that there is no perfect way that will satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Judges used to have a lot more discretion. But the common complaint was they they were too lenient and criminals got off too soon. The people clamored for tougher sentences, and the "tough on crime" movement was born. Passing more laws and passing increased sentences and passing "mandatory minimum" became (and still is to some degree) all the rage and proved to be an almost guaranteed re-election stance.

Fast forward many years and many of those issues have been solved, only to be replaced with new issues... overly draconian sentences that are way out of proportion to the crime. And we don't like those, either, and for good reason. Now there's a move to dial back mandatory minimums, which I advocate. Personally, I'm fine with minimum sentences, but not decades for minor crap.

Anyway, as far as this goes, we need to decide what we want. Do we want "blind justice" where all guilty people are tossed into a meat grinder of a system and accept the collateral damage? Or, do we want a system based more on the individual circumstances, knowing that some will fall through the cracks?

We say we want the best of both, but we can't have the best of both. Humans aren't that good. We need to make a choice.

They absolutely were too lenient, and parole boards were even worse. Hence, enter "Aimees's Law."

Santorum introduced Aimee’s Law in March 1999. Aimee's Law was prompted by the tragic death of college senior Aimee Willard from Brookhaven, Pennsylvania near Philadelphia. Arthur Bomar, a convicted murderer, was early paroled from a Nevada prison. Even after he assaulted a woman in prison, Nevada released him early. Bomar traveled to Pennsylvania where he found Aimee. He kidnapped, brutally raped and murdered Aimee. He was prosecuted a second time for murder for committing this heinous crime in Delaware County, PA. Aimee's mother, Gail Willard, has become a tireless advocate for victims' rights and serves as an inspiration to all who have the privilege of coming in contact with her.

Contact
 
I was referring to what a criminal defendant gets from their assigned public defender (typical salary from $50K to $125K in high cost areas like Los Angeles, CA) which is what the state provides to those with McJobs and accused of a felony.

My, admittedly limited, experience with them was that they want you to take a plea deal after a brief review of the state provided discovery evidence and a 10 to 15 minute interview with the accused. I specifically asked if they, or their investigators, had talked to the state's "witnesses" or to the alleged victim - their reply was that they only do that "if it is necessary".

The idea that someone charged, after stating that they are innocent, gets "legal advice" that they should take a deal (plead guilty to a lesser charge) without their assigned "legal council" ever seeing if the state's evidence or witness statements were valid is absurd.

The criminal "trial" (two months later) lasted all of 10 minutes but, rather than hearing not guilty from the judge, I was told that "the state has dismissed the case, young man, you are free to go".

How is spending 4 days in jail and having a felony arrest record (for life?) for absolutely nothing justice? It seems that everyone involved in that dismissed "case" was paid except me. The public defender's office later billed me $900 and offered to discuss "payment terms" after I had been assured, up front, that my part-time, MW job meant that I would not be billed. When challenged, they attributed it to a "clerical error" and I never heard another word about it.

Civil cases against anyone, especially the state or their assigned personnel, involved in a criminal trial are expensive and apt to go nowhere. You would think that someone arrested, charged with a felony, jailed for 4 days before being released on PR and was later told (upon appearing in court) that the state had no credible evidence because their (hearsay?) witness recanted and the alleged victim refused to testify (lie?) would be entitled to some damages.

https://www.glassdoor.com/Job/public-defender-investigation-jobs-SRCH_KO0,29.htm

:applaud

You understand the issue much better than the person you were responding to.

As far as "free" public defender defense, all states are different. Here in Iowa you are provided "free" defense from a public defender if you need it, but here's the kicker. Afterward you're expected to pay it back. It's not really free, it's a loan to get you through the immediate personal crises. And if you don't or can't pay it back you are breaking the law. Now granted, it's not overly common in state history, but people have beat the charge then gone to jail anyway over the cost of their defense.
 
They absolutely were too lenient, and parole boards were even worse. Hence, enter "Aimees's Law."

Anyone can pick out one or two or three anecdotes to "prove" their point. I'd be more interested in a comprehensive side-by-side comparison of examples from both sides.
 
Here's what usually happens when plea bargaining and parole boards have too much latitude.

After being released on parole from the 1981 murder of a five-year-old girl, 27-year-old Timothy Buss murdered another child, Christopher Meyer, 9, who was riding his bike home from a boat ramp at a community park on August 7, 1995.

...In 1993, Buss had been paroled after serving 12 years of a 25 year sentence for the murder of Tara Sue Huffman. Tara was sexually abused and murdered in Bradley, Illinois in 1981.

Timothy Buss | Murderpedia, the encyclopedia of murderers

So, no. I'm not buying the BS being sold in the op.
 
Anyone can pick out one or two or three anecdotes to "prove" their point. I'd be more interested in a comprehensive side-by-side comparison of examples from both sides.

Bull****. Violent offenders are being let out after serving roughly half of their sentence all over the country. And, the average murderer serves six years.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/PSATSFV.PDF
 
Bull****. Violent offenders are being let out after serving roughly half of their sentence all over the country. And, the average murderer serves six years.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/PSATSFV.PDF

You can be indignant all you want, you're still wrong. For every story one way there's a story the other way. You don't see it because you are close-minded and don't want to see it.
 
You can be indignant all you want, you're still wrong. For every story one way there's a story the other way. You don't see it because you are close-minded and don't want to see it.
Average prison time served for murder is 6 years. That's a disgrace. You really need to just admit you are full of **** on this.
 
Actually not true.. A poor white fellow will do better than a poor black fellow when it comes to the justice system. Studies show that when the data is controlled for socio economic status (in other words.. comparing poor white people to poor black people with the same finances).. the white person still fairs better.

I do business with some "Correctional Facilities" and the folks in charge at these routinely state the fact that when women are incarcerated, they are more likely to be the recipients of donations than are the men.

Men in prison, are more likely to be viewed as convicts deserving of punishment while the women are more likely to be viewed as victims who deserve help.

As a society we hold various biases.
 
I doubt those studies. Primarily because they probably don’t control for the incident and culture in question. I would hazard that s rural black person does better than an urban black person of the same economic standing. Things like that are frequently overlookedz

I live in Indianapolis and have business around the state causing frequent travel.

Judging only by the remarks heard around the state and in Indianapolis, I would guess that a Black guy would have a better shot at impartiality from a jury in the city rather than out "in the counties" as they say around here.

Once you get past the suburbs, you're pretty much into a different way of life and a different way of interacting with minorities.
 
Three Ways Courts Screw the Innocent Into Pleading Guilty

The rest of us get screwed when vicious thugs selling drugs are allowed to plea bargain and get a slap on the wrist instead of prison.
 
Is the eyes of the prosecuter it must be, if you don't take a plea bargain and are found guilty, they retaliate by giving you the max.

Prosecutors do not "give" anyone the max. The most they can do is recommend it.

And, besides, often what happens is the DA overcharges, pushing the boundaries of credibility in the process, and the jury finds the defendant guilty of the lesser offense anyway.
 
Don't deflect to the Prosecutor. You made the statement. I was asking you if that's your opinion.

Well, is it?

If you don't take a plea bargain and go to trial and are found guilty, you will get more time. Sure seems like retaliation to me. They give an incentive not to go to trial.
 
If you don't take a plea bargain and go to trial and are found guilty, you will get more time. Sure seems like retaliation to me. They give an incentive not to go to trial.

lol...yeah that kind of is the whole idea of a peal bargain. :doh
 
The rest of us get screwed when vicious thugs selling drugs are allowed to plea bargain and get a slap on the wrist instead of prison.

We are all screwed when rogue CIA agents trafficking in drugs, for more than half a century now, never even get charged for what they do.
 
We are all screwed when rogue CIA agents trafficking in drugs, for more than half a century now, never even get charged for what they do.

While there may have been a few of those (citation?) the number is insignificant compared to the numbers of vicious thugs selling drugs are allowed to plea bargain and get a slap on the wrist instead of prison.
 
“But white people and black lives matters and blah blah blah.”

Like Dave Chapel Chapel said, “trump isn’t there to help you poor white folks. He is there to help me.”

Money is what matters here. Not race. Not religion. A poor white guy is no different than a poor black one. They both will get screwed.

Yup, government of the sheeple, by the sheeple, for the 1%.

When you make gods out of your presidents, you are no different than the idiots who maintain royals. You think you are, you think you are some gifted, prescient people when all you have ever been are dupes for the new group of war criminals/terrorists who rape and pillage the planet.
 
While there may have been a few of those (citation?) the number is insignificant compared to the numbers of vicious thugs selling drugs are allowed to plea bargain and get a slap on the wrist instead of prison.

Provide your citation that there have only been a few.
 
While there may have been a few of those (citation?) the number is insignificant compared to the numbers of vicious thugs selling drugs are allowed to plea bargain and get a slap on the wrist instead of prison.

Oh yes, there have been "a few" of them, going back to when the Agency was created by statute. Alfred McCoy has written extensively about it, and Gary Webb documented it in his work with the San Jose newspaper. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-levin/gary-webb-was-right_b_6024530.html

The CIA has been in the dope business since it began. I found out myself in 1970. Webb's book Dark Alliance blew it all up. Congress conducted hearings and a big stink was raised, and on the same Friday afternoon they announced the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the CIA announced at a press conference that yes, Gary Webb was essentially correct.

The Land of Mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed cow manure :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
OK, who has a better judiciary system to propose, in detail? Who?

Whiners whine never to accomplish anything else.
 
OK, who has a better judiciary system to propose, in detail? Who?

Whiners whine never to accomplish anything else.

I do.

Lets start with decriminalizing a lot of drug offenses.. so that public defenders don't have the volume of people they have to defend that have minor.. piddling crimes.

Lets start with requiring states to adequately fund the public defenders office.

Lets start with ending private prison systems which lobby for laws and even buy judges and prosecutors to fill their "beds'.

Lets start with a justice system that is just as concerned about exonerating the innocent as convicting the guilty.
There are people that new technology or evidence has exonerated and yet the justice system drags its feet letting them out. and until that time.. get rid of the death penalty.
 
Back
Top Bottom