Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 11 2017, @10:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the things-are-not-always-as-they-appear dept.

[IANAL]

In the US, courts assess guilt or innocence before a conviction, then after that the appellate courts focus solely on fairness. The Atlantic has an exposé on some people who are wrongly convicted are pressured to accept Alford Plea Deals in lieu of exonerations — that more or less means to plead guilty for a verbal guarantee from the courts to both speed things up and give a much lighter or minimal sentence. But how many do this is not known: this situation is not tracked there are no formal statistics. However, in Baltimore City and County alone, there were at least 10 cases in the last 19 years in which defendants with viable innocence claims ended up signing Alford pleas. These can translate to the occasional innocent person being stigmatized, unable to sue the state, and that no one re-investigates the crime meaning that the real perpetrator is never brought to justice.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 11 2017, @11:57AM (17 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 11 2017, @11:57AM (#566197) Journal

    The worst trouble I've ever been in, involved some bounced checks, when I was in business. I think we all know how that goes - the bank gets 3 or 30 checks in, all at the same time, and they see that one will bounce. They put them in order of size, pay the biggest first, and work down, so that they can bounce the largest number of checks. In my case, six checks bounced, and they charged me six fees, instead of paying all the little ones, and only bouncing ONE check.

    Anyway, the district attorney stuck his nose in before I got everything squared away. He did his very best to intimidate me, and was actually beginning to make me see things his way. He got down to a line about "Just sign this form, waiving your right" and I balked. No, I'm NOT waiving any rights. I'm a citizen, a veteran, and a taxpayer, I'm NOT surrendering any of my rights!!

    He blustered and spluttered for a few minutes, and I just got more stubborn, and told him that he might get a conviction against me for writing bad checks, but he would have to do so before a jury of my peers. I'm not waiving any rights, and that's that.

    Silly turd caved in, told me that if I had the checks all taken care of by the end of the month, he would forget he ever heard of them.

    Your mileage may vary, of course, but you DO have rights, unless and until you waive them away. Remember, if you waive those rights, you will be treated just like any "real" convict. You'll have a record, and the cops will come knocking on your door every time they have some similar problem.

    Incidentally, I take a small amount of pride in the fact that I made the system work. The prosecuting attorney is SUPPOSED TO WORK to take criminals off the street. Don't give him a "win" just because he threatens you, and promises to make your life miserable. Stand up to the bastards!!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday September 11 2017, @12:49PM (9 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Monday September 11 2017, @12:49PM (#566206) Journal

    The prosecuting attorney is SUPPOSED TO WORK to take criminals off the street

    In the 1765, William Blackstone wrote of the English legal system:

    It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer

    The US declaration of independence was issued a decade later and the US legal system supposedly incorporates this maxim (Blackstone's formulation). The entire system is supposed to be designed so that it's hard to convict someone unless you have overwhelming evidence that they are guilty. Sadly, in an age when evidence gathering is easier than ever before, this has been eroded.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @01:44PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @01:44PM (#566218)

      It's in the Bible though... Pretty much verbatim.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @04:37PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @04:37PM (#566266)

        Which part? Stoning people in various demographics to death without trial simply for being born with a certain skin color or sexual orientation?

        From my reading of the works collected in the Bible, it was part of that culture (undoubtedly a thar culture [uwgb.edu]) to hasten to judgement under the principle that it is better that ten innocent persons suffer (though they had a preoccupation with 7 and 77), so better that 77 innocent persons suffer than one sinner be allowed to live.

        After all, for the 77 innocents who are stoned to death, it was believed that Yahweh would reward them in heaven as martyrs. The priesthood and royalty, naturally, stood absolved of any errors they made that caused innocents to be stoned to death.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:36AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 12 2017, @07:36AM (#566588)

          Stoning people in various demographics to death without trial simply for being born with a certain skin color

          Well, it doesn't take a lot of trial to prove the color of someones skin.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by ledow on Monday September 11 2017, @02:02PM (5 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Monday September 11 2017, @02:02PM (#566220) Homepage

      A cheque (check!) drawn on an account without funds (no matter the order, size or whatever - if you're unsure, don't issue it) is prima facie evidence of guilt.

      Sure, don't just cave, but fact is the existence of the cheque and your admission of writing it is the overwhelming evidence required.

      That you argue over some administrative ordering of the cheque presentation is neither here nor there, really. The people given your promissory aren't to know that it's only unbankable in a certain order, and the bank are not legally in a position to deny cheques selectively based on their assessment of them (the £1 cheque might be more critical than the £1000 one). Either you have the funds to fulfill them all, whenever they may be presented and in whatever order, or you don't. If you don't you have committed a crime by writing them.

      The judge was trying to clear up the matter as quickly as possible, you refused, now the court has to go check up on you and potentially re-summon you if you don't pay. All that costs.

      Sure, from one point of view, you "won", but really all you did was get what you were entitled to and didn't exercise an easy option given. Especially given that you were guilty by your own admission. The judge could just as easily have convicted you there and then AND made you pay back. But, you know what? That's actually MORE expensive and more time-consuming.

      Certainly, I would not waive a right, either. But that's not the point. The point is that you wrote out more cheques promising money than you had money. That you "got away with it" is only due to legal leniency, because by your own admission you were guilty. The leniency shown was to offer two ways out that were quicker and cheaper than the legally required response if you didn't take them. Because you were already guilty beyond reasonable doubt before you even walked into the courtroom.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 11 2017, @03:21PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 11 2017, @03:21PM (#566238) Journal

        The fact that you wrote a check that isn't covered is proof that you did SOMETHING wrong. The question is, intent. You can "cheat" someone out of something, with intent, or without intent. There are extenuating and mitigating circumstances to consider. An individual who writes dozens of checks, on accounts that don't even exist, with full intent to defraud business owners out of large sums of money isn't in the same class as some dumbass who failed to balance his checkbook properly.

        That is why I told the DA that he would have to get his conviction in front of a jury. There are no "prima facie" convictions, especially whan the defense can farm potential jurors just as easily as the prosecution can.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday September 11 2017, @06:34PM (1 child)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Monday September 11 2017, @06:34PM (#566312) Homepage Journal

          While I'm loathe to say it, Runaway makes an important point.

          There's a difference (in US state and federal criminal law at least) between laws that contain a strict liability [wikipedia.org] standard and those that do not. Laws that do not have strict liability clauses are adjudged based upon Mens Rea (Latin for "guilty mind") [wikipedia.org].

          From the Wikipedia "Strict Liability" page:

          In the United States strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (mens rea) because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (mens rea) and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability.

          The difference is striking: with strict liability, it is irrelevant whether or not the person charged intended to commit a crime or not. Proving that the defendant committed the act itself is enough for conviction. On the other hand, if the particular law uses Mens Rea as a standard, it is not enough just to show that the act was committed, there must also have been intent to commit a crime.

          I'm not sure what jurisdiction (or what specific law) under which Runaway was charged, but very few laws (in US Federal and state legal codes)have a strict liability standard. I'd be quite surprised if "check fraud" or whatever law was cited has a strict liability standard. As such, it's unlikely (assuming it was, in fact, an error in judgement or an honest mistake, rather than an attempt to defraud) that a prosecutor could muster the requisite Mens Rea for a conviction.

          That doesn't mean it's a good idea to bounce checks, but as with most laws (in the US at least), doing so without the requisite intent is not a crime.

          It may well be a Civil Tort [wikipedia.org] and, as such, Runaway could be sued by those who suffered for his bad behavior.

          N.B.: IANAL

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:28AM

            by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:28AM (#566544) Journal

            Of course check fraud isn't strict liability! Strict liability is only for very petty offenses, like traffic tickets and ... uh ... statutory rape ...

            Yeah okay we need some legal reform to make it so strict liability is actually only for very petty offenses, like it's supposed to be, but it's not so bad it's gotten to check fraud yet.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @03:23PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 11 2017, @03:23PM (#566241)

        What kinda asshole buys things he can't afford?
        Fuck this criminal he could have had a credit card but instead he wanted to hold up the whole fucking line at the grocery store... wasting everyone's time so he could commit crimes.

        Fucking drain on society

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by realDonaldTrump on Monday September 11 2017, @08:48PM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday September 11 2017, @08:48PM (#566378) Homepage Journal

          Credit can be great. For those who can get it, it can be a great, great thing. And one kind of credit is the overdraft. From which the banks make a lot, a lot of money. I hate to say it, but maybe the overdraft would be a good idea for this guy. Maybe a good idea. If he loses track of his checks, if he doesn't have an accountant to keep track of his checks. The overdraft isn't great, honestly, it's terrible. But it isn't the worst. 🇺🇸

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by crafoo on Monday September 11 2017, @12:59PM (4 children)

    by crafoo (6639) on Monday September 11 2017, @12:59PM (#566209)

    Well, you discovered that humans are humans no matter what their job is. No one wants to work hard. Prosecutors and government attorneys do not want to work hard. They don't really want to do the right thing. They just want to get the easiest conviction possible. It's so much easier when people just waive their rights and plead out to some deal. The judge, bailiff, court recorder. No one doesn't want to hassle with it. Plead guilty, take a deal, move along.

    If everyone asked for their day in court the system might work better. Prosecutors might stop throwing every crazy charge they can think of at people hoping to plea down to what they really want. Cops might make intelligent decisions arresting people v. actually keeping the peace. Judges might scream at law makers to write sane laws and lay off the mandatory sentencing BS.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday September 11 2017, @02:47PM (3 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday September 11 2017, @02:47PM (#566227)

      Prosecutors and government attorneys do not want to work hard. They don't really want to do the right thing. They just want to get the easiest conviction possible. It's so much easier when people just waive their rights and plead out to some deal. The judge, bailiff, court recorder. No one doesn't want to hassle with it. Plead guilty, take a deal, move along.

      This is wrong. It would be much easier if they'd just drop the affair to begin with, or not even bother attempting to prosecute. Instead, they expend effort to ruin the lives of people who either are innocent, or just made an honest mistake without criminal intent. They're not just lazy; these people in government are downright evil. If they were merely lazy, they wouldn't bother to harass anyone unless it was plainly obvious the person had criminal intent and was a true danger to society.

      Cops might make intelligent decisions arresting people v. actually keeping the peace.

      Again, this shows that they're actually evil, not just lazy. If they were lazy, they wouldn't bother expending the effort to arrest people unless they thought they really needed to. Instead, they're all too happy to arrest people when it isn't really necessary.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by crafoo on Tuesday September 12 2017, @01:02AM (2 children)

        by crafoo (6639) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @01:02AM (#566491)

        I disagree. I don't think most prosecutors or peace officers (or whatever the fuck they are called now) are evil. I think there are very real, measurable metrics they are held to. These metrics and goals, absent any other counteracting forces, produces what we have today. Internally they promote an us vs. them dynamic. They LARP as tough, powerful men, "busting ass, bringing shitheals to justice". Every incentive, employment guideline, and law drives them to the outcome we have today. They are not individually evil. They are no different than you. You need to recognize that if we are going to make the system work. You would do EXACTLY the same thing in their situation. You may pretend otherwise but you do not fool anyone.

        • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:38AM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @04:38AM (#566546) Journal

          You would do EXACTLY the same thing in their situation. You may pretend otherwise but you do not fool anyone.

          I agree that incentives matter, but not to the extent you imply. Some people do what they think is right, and damn the incentives or consequences. They're rare, but they're probably more rare because most people try to avoid situations where they have to choose between what's right and what's expected.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico [wikipedia.org]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden [wikipedia.org]

          If I were forced to be a police officer in a horribly corrupt district, and I couldn't just quit, I can honestly say I'd end up a whistleblower, and possibly a dead one. But I'd really rather just not put myself in that situation.

        • (Score: 4, Touché) by Grishnakh on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:04PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday September 12 2017, @03:04PM (#566758)

          Bullshit. That sounds just like the ol' "I was just following orders" excuse. No one forces a prosecutor to prosecute someone who's obviously not guilty, yet they happily do it anyway because it helps their career. That is the very definition of evil. If you do evil, then you are evil.

  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday September 11 2017, @04:17PM (1 child)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Monday September 11 2017, @04:17PM (#566256) Journal

    Corruption, intimidation, and negligence of this sort is why people distrust and hate government.

    Is that your only encounter with the law? Myself, I've been pulled over three times and let off with warnings each time, once for an unlit taillight, another for an unlit rear license plate light, and once for speeding. Another 2 times I was a passenger. One of those times, the driver was ticketed, and I think deservedly. So I wonder if the fear of overly zealous policing is a bit overblown. On the other hand, if I had a darker skin color, I probably would've been pulled over and ticketed more often.

    But I've also been busted with a parking ticket at a meter that should not have expired, and by a red light camera for missing the light by 0.6 seconds, in which the yellow was about 0.6 seconds shorter than it should have been, and there was no mercy there. I simply ignored the parking ticket, as it happened in another state, and never heard any more about it. For the red light, I took the route of requesting a hearing, which went as I expected. I lost, but my main reason was to cost them any profit they would make from me, win or lose, and hearings do cost them. They were clearly interested in revenue, not justice. But I did in good faith bring my evidence that the light was mistimed, just in case.

    There are other ways to fight. For instance, since then, I have boycotted that city.

    You can also sometimes get minions in trouble with their superiors. All too often, they exceed their authority. They're being squeezed, and resort to lying and bullying citizens to boost their numbers, find it easier and safer to do that than buck their superiors. This also involves keeping their superiors in the dark about the rule bending they do. This is true of any large organization, government or corporate. In my hometown, the city police really had it in for teenage drivers, following them everywhere and pulling them over at the slightest excuse, such as not coming to a full stop, before the stop sign and again at the intersection in those cases where the stop sign was too far back. They especially targeted the top high school students. One time, my brother spotted one of the worst officers driving to work in his private car, going 15 mph over the speed limit, and followed him in and complained to the police chief and the city administration about the double standard. It worked. The officer must have been ordered to quit harassing him, because from then on, that officer would scowl villainously at him whenever their paths crossed, but no longer followed him about.

    Bravo for standing your ground against that punk district attorney.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 11 2017, @05:16PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 11 2017, @05:16PM (#566282) Journal

      "Is that your only encounter with the law?"

      LOL, certainly not. That was only the worst trouble that I've ever been in, personally. Most of my encounters with police have involved traffic citations. Roughly 1/3 of those citations were accurate and just - the other 2/3 were made up out of thin air, and out-of-state driver's license.

      I've met bad cops, good cops, and a couple of great guys wearing the uniform. Also, one evil SOB. The stories of the great cops, and the evil SOB would take pages to write out, so I'll just leave it there.

      Just call me a scofflaw when it comes to traffic laws. I've talked to a lot of policemen in my lifetime. My EMT training has led me to stop a lot of times, as well, so not every encounter with the police has been about my driving.

      Life can be interesting!