• 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

Nobody cares about the truth. Always teach your children only discuss the case with your lawyer. The police, the DA, and even the judge are not your friend. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is a good lawyer, money, and who you know.

when I was a teenager I discussed legalities with friends & others in casual conversation, and the concept of 'rights' came up. I told people that the only rights we have are money, because if you need a really good defense attorney & you can't afford one, then you have no rights.
 
Nobody cares about the truth. Always teach your children only discuss the case with your lawyer. The police, the DA, and even the judge are not your friend. The difference between a felony and a misdemeanor is a good lawyer, money, and who you know.

That (bolded above) sums our "just us" system up fairly well but in this thread we are talking about the innocent that have been alleged by the state to have committed a crime. They are, to a large extent, being asked to prove a negative with far fewer resources than the state has been provided by the taxpayers to do so.

Being offered only a public defender, a single lawyer that may not be well versed or experienced in the that particular area of law, while the state has a team of prosecutors, investigators, "expert" witnesses (an odd term for one that only "interprets" evidence after the fact) and works with (or even selects?) the judge that will be hearing (running?) the case.

One change, that may help to reduce the ridiculous power of the state to overcharge in criminal cases, would be the elimination of the lesser included offense(s) option for a judge/jury verdict. The accused must be found guilty (or is left innocent) of any and all charges brought by the state, not merely some subset of them. If the state charges someone with a "hate crime", then the state must prove exactly that, beyond a reasonable doubt, and not allow the judge/jury to "adjust" the state's charge(s) after the trail starts. This is what a plea deal is - amending (lowering) the state's charge(s) but only if the innocent (which is what one is before the trial) accused agrees to plead guilty.
 
Last edited:
when I was a teenager I discussed legalities with friends & others in casual conversation, and the concept of 'rights' came up. I told people that the only rights we have are money, because if you need a really good defense attorney & you can't afford one, then you have no rights.

Having a lawyer alone is largely useless if they have no assistance (investigators and or "expert" witnesses) to counter the resources allocated to the state - the defense lawyer is starting (well?) behind the state which has had (potentially) years to build a case before an arrest/indictment was made. The concept (process?) of discovery, the state must provide all evidence to the defense, looks good on paper but how is the defense to know (without an equally rigorous investigation and access to "experts") if some witnesses were simply not talked to by the state or some evidence was overlooked?
 
when I was a teenager I discussed legalities with friends & others in casual conversation, and the concept of 'rights' came up. I told people that the only rights we have are money, because if you need a really good defense attorney & you can't afford one, then you have no rights.

“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.
 
“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.

not telling me anything new; it's called the 'just us' system for a reason ........ cause it's only for folks that just have money .........
 
not telling me anything new; it's called the 'just us' system for a reason ........ cause it's only for folks that just have money .........

Yep. I’ve been more aware of this as I have gotten older. I do believe that the system can be navigated fine as long as you take personal responsibility and accountability seriously. People who do that tend to have less trouble. But even then...you can get screwed if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
“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.

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.
 
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 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 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

Actually those studies did exactly that. They controlled for the type of crime and any priors etc.

Hmmm.. why would think that a rural black person fairs better than an urban black person of the same economic standing? Just curious..

I would say it would likely be the opposite having lived in both rural and urban areas.

Anyway.. and differences in urban and rural areas experience with black people. it wouldn't matter in a study on whether white or black gave you an advantage since the studies draw across urban and rural..
 
Having a lawyer alone is largely useless if they have no assistance (investigators and or "expert" witnesses) to counter the resources .....................?



That's a bunch of horse ****. It is the lawyers job to investigate.... and that's what they learn in Law School.

OK -- some fancy lawyers do have investigators, and/or private detectives, and/or protection personnel, and/or research, and/or para-legals and hoardes of secretaries. Also.... People they can call for specific law facts -- labor law, environmental law, and a ton of other legal specialities.

If I am paying for a good defense , because my life, my freedom.... and my future depends on the lawyer I hired..... THEY BETTER damn sure be able to do an investigation. Also.... they better know how to oversee - as well as REVIEW PERIODICALLY the investigation / background / facts / research....... done by others - ON MY CASE. If not..... Id have a word with the judge - and I would look for another lawyer.


Lawyers are bound by their legal requirements, ethics, and their oath they took when becoming lawyers. Anything less..... is a breach of trust - possible criminal - and more than likely.... A FUTURE CIVIL CASE AGAINST the lawyer(s).


To reemphasize ---- LAWYERS BETTER know how to do an investigation, as well as supervise / oversee and investigation. Someones life ---- DEPENDS on it !






Major Lambda
 
Hmmm.. why would think that a rural black person fairs better than an urban black person of the same economic standing? Just curious..

My guess would be population density or results thereof. It's a factor in many studies. It can be and has been controlled for (presuming it's significant) and we get the same results: black people don't get a fair deal.

It's not like some guy on the internet discovers a factor that thousands of researchers missed. And that factor somehow negates all known research? Yeah, that's happening.

He ignores those scientific facts on the ground that thousands of researchers, who spend careers, overlooked something he just thought of.
 
Last edited:
IMO, we have the opposite problem: too many guilty people receiving light sentences and get out of jail early cards. Plea bargaining is part of that problem.

If you are innocent, don't plead guilty---ever! Simple as that.

IF, you can absolutely prove it. When a public pretender comes to convey the "peoples" offer, it is made abundantly clear, should you reject the states "generous" offer and have the gall to demand a trial and are found guilty, you WILL get the max.
 
Three Ways Courts Screw the Innocent Into Pleading Guilty

https://theintercept.com/2014/11/07/how-the-innocent-get-screwed/


While at the same time, a lot of perps who SHOULD get long sentences are out in a few months or a couple years, through plea-bargains or other means. I've seen some of the most messed-up miscarriages of justice in my day, both of the "way too harsh" and "way too lenient" variety... smh.

The system is seriously fracked.
 
IF, you can absolutely prove it. When a public pretender comes to convey the "peoples" offer, it is made abundantly clear, should you reject the states "generous" offer and have the gall to demand a trial and are found guilty, you WILL get the max.

What greater cause, more worthwhile game to play, is out there than to fight for your innocence? If you're innocent, you take that risk. Roll the dice and gamble.
 
While at the same time, a lot of perps who SHOULD get long sentences are out in a few months or a couple years, through plea-bargains or other means. I've seen some of the most messed-up miscarriages of justice in my day, both of the "way too harsh" and "way too lenient" variety... smh.

The system is seriously fracked.

Rare is a case in one of those murder documentaries where the killer doesn't have multiple convictions. And, for sex crimes, it's almost 100% the case: convicted for rape or attempted abduction, pleaded down to less than 10 years, and then an early release on top of it. Most of the time, they're killing somoeone when they should have still been serving their original sentence.
 
That's a bunch of horse ****. It is the lawyers job to investigate.... and that's what they learn in Law School.

OK -- some fancy lawyers do have investigators, and/or private detectives, and/or protection personnel, and/or research, and/or para-legals and hoardes of secretaries. Also.... People they can call for specific law facts -- labor law, environmental law, and a ton of other legal specialities.

If I am paying for a good defense , because my life, my freedom.... and my future depends on the lawyer I hired..... THEY BETTER damn sure be able to do an investigation. Also.... they better know how to oversee - as well as REVIEW PERIODICALLY the investigation / background / facts / research....... done by others - ON MY CASE. If not..... Id have a word with the judge - and I would look for another lawyer.


Lawyers are bound by their legal requirements, ethics, and their oath they took when becoming lawyers. Anything less..... is a breach of trust - possible criminal - and more than likely.... A FUTURE CIVIL CASE AGAINST the lawyer(s).


To reemphasize ---- LAWYERS BETTER know how to do an investigation, as well as supervise / oversee and investigation. Someones life ---- DEPENDS on it !






Major Lambda

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
 
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

I've been in trouble before, many times...surprise surprise. And, each time without fail, my attorney presented to me the state's offered deal--it's his job to do that, by law, you know. I took a few of them, when I knew I was not going to win, because I knew they had me dead to rights. In fact, I was rather impressed with the offers.

Considering what they had me for, the offers were pretty sweet. Criminal damage to property--I kicked in a door--reduced to trespassing. DUI reduced to reckless driving...that sort of thing. Why wouldn't I take that?

When I was charged for crimes I did not commit, I never took a deal. It never even occurred to me to plead guilty to something I did not do.
 
IF, you can absolutely prove it. When a public pretender comes to convey the "peoples" offer, it is made abundantly clear, should you reject the states "generous" offer and have the gall to demand a trial and are found guilty, you WILL get the max.

Insisting on your Constitutional right to a trial is "gall"? Really?
 
While at the same time, a lot of perps who SHOULD get long sentences are out in a few months or a couple years, through plea-bargains or other means. I've seen some of the most messed-up miscarriages of justice in my day, both of the "way too harsh" and "way too lenient" variety... smh.

The system is seriously fracked.

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.
 
What greater cause, more worthwhile game to play, is out there than to fight for your innocence? If you're innocent, you take that risk. Roll the dice and gamble.

I like to think that, should I ever be faced with that decision, I would fight for my innocence. But I've never been faced with that choice, and one can never really know until they are.
 
A major problem is politics. The DA is usually a springboard for a political career, and so many prosecutors go after everybody to show the public they're tough on crime. The fact that they have a huge amount of power (and liable to abuse it), only makes things worse.

Yep. "Tough on crime" is still a huge plus in the eyes of the voters.
 
Back
Top Bottom