Teenagers are more likely to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because they are less able to make mature decisions, new research shows.
Experts have called for major changes to the criminal justice system after finding innocent younger people are far more likely admit to offences, even when innocent, than adults.
Those who carried out the study say teenagers should not be allowed to make deals where they face a lesser charge in return for pleading guilty. The study suggests young people are more likely to be enticed by these deals, and take what they see as an advantageous offer even when they have done nothing wrong.
Most criminal convictions in the UK and the USA occur as the result of guilty pleas, rather than trial. This means the majority of convictions are the result of decisions made by people accused of crimes rather than jurors.
The research was carried out in the USA, where a system known as "plea bargaining" is utilised, but the academics say their discovery has implications for countries across the world that allow teenagers accused of crimes to receive a sentence or charge reduction by pleading guilty. Specifically, the researchers recommend restricting reductions that may entice innocent teenagers into pleading guilty and making it easier for teenagers to change pleas after they have been entered.
Other research has found adolescents are less able to perceive risk and resist the influence of peers because of developmental immaturity.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-teenagers-guilty-crimes-didnt-commit.html
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:27PM (16 children)
Why do we need to change the criminal justice system when the problem clearly resides in the education system?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by isostatic on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:00PM (13 children)
People admit to things they didn't do because they understand that innocent people go to jail, and the whole process is a gamble.
If you are not guilty and say "not guilty", there's say a 1 in 4 chance you'll be found guilty anyway (especially if you're black), and your life is over and you get 20 years in a prison system modeled after tribal Pakistan, which thinks rape is an appropriate means of punishment
If you are not guilty and say "guilty", you may get away with probation or something and have a chance of keeping some form of life together
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:38PM
Worse than that. As a good attorney would explain to one, only total idiot - probably criminal idiot - would try to fight the system on the odds like that. Jurors instinctively know it and vote accordingly.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:34PM (4 children)
Perhaps I'm stupid then because I would fight tooth and nail to preserve my reputation. If you want the truth, compare statistical results from the Milgram experiment [simplypsychology.org] with these results. [psychologicalscience.org] Feeble mindedness and deference for false authority is a learned behaviour, critical thinking and assertiveness are absolute defences and these are skills that can be taught.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:03PM (1 child)
Perhaps I'm stupid then because I would fight tooth and nail to preserve my reputation.
And have a high chance of losing your job, house, kids and freedom?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:01AM
Yes - and I would "win" in the sense that my self-respect would remain untarnished.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:13AM (1 child)
You say that now, as a person who wasn't dragged out of the house and interrogated for many hours without a break then tossed in jail to stew for a while. After a few days of being treated like a sub-human, someone tells you that just one little word can make sure you go home that afternoon. Or proclaim your innocence and that little hellhole becomes your life for the next 20 years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 19 2018, @12:03AM
What? The threat of commencement of legal proceedings is usually enough that interlocutors back down. Stand up for yourself, always!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:14PM (3 children)
You've set the situation up as a completely rational decision. But grown adults can be worn down by lengthy, repetitive, and hostile police interrogation. They can also be lied to by the police: "Just sign this confession and we'll make sure to use it to get the real killer!" Finally, if we are talking about teenagers, they are even more emotional, delusional, influenced by what they've seen on TV, etc., making them easier to manipulate.
If you do confess, it doesn't matter if you take it back 15 minutes later. Prosecutors will still use it against you in court.
Here's another way it could go down: You admit guilt because you or your family have been threatened by the real criminal.
Maybe the solution is for the courts to throw out all confessions that are disavowed. Witness testimony isn't considered very reliable by itself, and confessions shouldn't be either. Unless you give up the GPS coordinates for where the bodies are buried.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:55PM (2 children)
I had a case where they grilled a guy for an hour and a half. He never relented the whole time. Finally, they said, "Well, we have a summary of what was said here. Just sign it and we'll let you go." The guy signed it and they put him in cuffs. Turns out that the "summary" was actually a confession and he is charged with all sorts of crimes. The trial had already began before the police finally gave me a tape of the interview (the cop on the stand claimed it was lost until I crossed asking about the flagrant violations of the record laws) and they only did that because the judge threatened a mistrial unless they turned over the tape before then end of the business day. Lo and Behold, I had the recording on DVD in my hands less than 30 minutes later. As soon as I saw the tape, it was over. Thankfully, the guy was illiterate and was adamant that someone needed to read it to him. The cop then proceeds to "read" it to him, complete with the finger along the words. So, agreeing with what it "said," he signs it. BOOM! Cuffs come out seconds later. According to my client, you didn't need to be an expert in psychology to see how fast that jury turned. The impeachment of the prior day's testimony was just the icing on the cake.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:00PM
However that poor innocent chap still had a horendous time, including being detained for a crime he didn't commit, probably had his name in the papers, accusations about 'no smoke without fire' for the rest of his life, not to mention the cost of a defence lawyer.
The cops in question should be paying for that -- not the state or city, it should come out of the corrupt cops salary, assets (house etc) and pension, and they should be in jail.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @01:55AM
With just four words: "I want a lawyer."
You should never, ever talk to the police for just the reasons you state. You have the right to remain silent. Use that right.
Don't believe me? Then see what a defense attorney and a 20+ year LEO veteran have to say about it. [youtube.com]
Don't like being so brief? How about "With all due respect [sir/madam], I decline to answer any questions. I wish to speak with an attorney."
This is really important, as you need to affirmatively assert your right to remain silent rather than just remaining silent, as discussed in Berghuis v. Thompkins [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:58PM
That's part of it.
Another part of the story: Let's say you're a public defender who has 25 cases to work on that week (many are more overworked than that). Now consider the difference in your workload between going to trial and having your client plead guilty. Your salary is a joke, and you don't get paid extra or anything if you work your butt off to win your case. So the person who is supposed to be the advocate of the accused has every incentive to get them to plead guilty, even if they think that client is innocent.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:58PM
Dude, just like get out of my face! Whatever. If I say yes will you stop bothering me? O.K. O.K., I did it.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday March 18 2018, @02:58AM
Aw come on, teenagers are always up to no good. You know they've done something even when they haven't. Those odd smells from the bedroom, the funny stains in their jeans, the unexplained absences for "a school project", you just know they're guilty of all sorts of stuff.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:51PM
The kid is caught doing something wrong. In reality, it's a minor offense. But the prosecutor sees an opportunity, so he and the cops conspire to bury the kid in dozens of charges. The kid is dumb, and thinks that he WILL be buried, so he takes the plea deal. Instead of the single stupid minor offense, he has just become a felon.
The whole plea deal arrangement is dirty. The prosecutors let real felons walk, in exchange for information. They lock up innocent citizens over bullshit. It's just dirty.
Judges should intervene in these plea deals, and put a stop to them. Judges should be wise enough to know that many adults don't know better, and kids certainly don't.
And, no, this isn't something that is taught even in decent school systems. Just maybe in really excellent school systems, that produce citizens who are actively engaged in their government. Hell, we don't even have civics classes anymore, do we? We've replaced a decent system, with a pure shit system. Few high school grads can name their own state capital it seems.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 19 2018, @12:32PM
The problem resides in neither place.
The comparison is on the same justice system. Between TEENS and ADULTS. Therefore the problem resides in the plain fact that young meatbags are underdeveloped and more pliable. Most authoritarian systems and most religions try to 'educate' the young ASAP so this was empirically known already.
You meatbags derailed the thread, but it is OK because the rails were very short.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:32PM (29 children)
Plea bargaining is outright evil. Either you did it, and you deserve the full punishment, or you didn't do it, and those who have been harassing you under color of law owe you full restitution.
"But we couldn't have the world's highest jail population if we had to take each one to jury trial!"
Yeah. That's right. You couldn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:37PM
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:01PM (5 children)
Or legal system wouldn't even be able to function without plea bargains. There is such a high volume of arrests, charges, and so many necessary steps to actually legally prosecuting crime that the judges, prosecutors, and public defenders will try to push everyone into pleading. If even a small fraction of people "stood up" and made the courts fight to prove guilt before sentencing, the system would grind to a halt. I think this is a necessary thing that must happen before we can get any legal reform.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:42PM (2 children)
"Or legal system wouldn't even be able to function without plea bargains"
Good, what we have now is tyranny.
Sadly our justice system and political system is completely broken.
We've made so many unnecessary laws that at any given point in time, everyone is breaking the law. So we resort to selective enforcement. The scheme is simple: make everything illegal, then enforce the law against your enemies. Selective enforcement is tyranny.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:45PM (1 child)
It is not broken - it works as designed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:21PM
:-(
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:14PM
Heaps of countries in this world don't have plea bargains and their justice system didn't collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:33PM
The alternate effect of that could be to induce legislators to establish more courtrooms, which would be the other obvious solution to this problem. About 1/3 of people who graduate from law school don't actually end up working in law, so we have the people available to give a lot more people proper trials if we actually wanted to do so.
Of course, we'd rather not do so, because that really screws up the private prison revenue models.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:52PM (21 children)
Another solution for the jail population would be to re-introduce punishments other than jail. For example: what is wrong with corporal punishment [wikipedia.org] for minor property crimes? To the extent that punishment is intended to be a deterrent, it might well be more effective than jail time, especially for repeat offenders. Where restitution is appropriate, then work in the person's free time. Teenage kid sprayed graffiti on a building? Spend half-a-year's worth of Saturdays picking up trash along the highway.
Putting someone in jail really ought to be a last resort, used only when public safety is an issue, or when a repeat offender simply won't stop. First, jail is outrageously expensive. Second, but even more important: destroys your life: if you had a job and home when you go in, you won't anymore when you get out.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:04PM
> what is wrong with corporal punishment
You'll know as soon as someone dies from it (directly or indirectly) or suffers crippling injuries.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by unauthorized on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:18PM (18 children)
I was going to mod you funny, and then I realized you are serious. What's wrong is that it's a form of torture. Torture is bad, mkay?
(Score: 3, Disagree) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:50PM (6 children)
Torture? Um...not really. Torture implies some sadistic or ulterior motive.
Why is inflicting physical pain as punishment morally worse than depriving someone of their physical freedom? Serious question. Seems to me that prison is a far harsher penalty, by almost any measure.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Justin Case on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)
Prison often includes torture.
What's more, the "tough on crime" authoritarian bootlickers like it that way.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:11PM
Yeah, then there's that. Jokes about "sphincter control problems", as though prison assault and rape is supposed to be part of the punishment. The US prison system is a sick place, and some USAians are pretty sick in their joking acceptance of this situation.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:21PM (2 children)
Torture implies the the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. [dictionary.com].
I am not obliged to defend this position because I do not hold it.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @09:49PM (1 child)
Say what? You _do_ hold the position that corporal punishment is morally worse than imprisonment, so - yes you do need to defend this. BTW, you definition of torture agrees with mine, and does not apply to judicially administered punishment.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:19PM
No, I hold the position that both are immoral unless we have to to isolate a person from society either for their protection or for the protection of those around them. I would rather society acts to minimize harm and only imprison people if it's necessary to prevent further harm. Furthermore I hold the position that corporal punishment does not reduce the risk of re-offending as much as imprisonment and in fact is likely to increase the risk, through this is an opinion I've formed through anecdotal observations, so I' don't feel qualified to argue that point, which is why I did not.
So if the law decreed it's not rape to punish people by tying them to a pillory and publicly violating them as a form of "judicially administered punishment" would you consider that not to be rape? Morality is what we use to define laws, not the other way around. Just because a society decides to accept an action as legal, that doesn't make the action moral.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 19 2018, @12:36PM
I have nothing against not overly hard slapping the face or the butt of a meatbag, it improves circulation.
Having said that, I fear that many small crimes are from people in need of attention. Which means that they will subconsciously like the punishment. Which means it is ineffective.
I agree on reparations instead of jail time. Caught soiling, you clean. Not at midnight, in front of your peers.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:56PM (8 children)
Wait.
Spanking a child that has ignored multiple verbal warnings, timeouts and "consequences", but has continued with an unacceptable and publicly disruptive behavior is torture?
You must led a blessed life if you've never been in a market and encountered a child creating a major disruption while the parent just keeps telling them stop what they are doing and to stop knocking stuff off the shelves and shouting at the top of their lungs.
While I will agree that putting a dog collar on a child and chaining them up in the front yard because they won't eat their vegetables is unacceptably extreme. A single solid smack on the butt will enforce the conditioning that "break the rules==get punished".
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by unauthorized on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:38PM (2 children)
Welcome to cognitive dissonance. It's a bitch isn't it?
If your child behaves like that, then that raises some questions about how you raised them.
But to return to your point, what exactly disqualifies it as an act of torture?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 18 2018, @12:01AM
Every snowflake is special, they are all unique and what works on all the snowflakes you've ever known may not work at all on another one.
Now, beatings, they generate a fairly predictable result - not a desirable one: fear, cowering, resentment, retaliation, explosive retribution...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 19 2018, @12:44PM
> what exactly disqualifies it as an act of torture?
The "excruciating" adjective prefixed to pain in the definition I have read on this thread, I guess.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:41PM (2 children)
No, it enforces the conditioning that if you're bigger than the other person you have a right to hurt them if they don't do what you want them to do. In other words, "might makes right".
You want to punish a kid who's causing a racket in the toy aisle? Take them out of the store as quickly as possible, without any toys. Let them scream and cry and stomp in the car all they want, you still won't get them the toy, even if you'd planned on giving them a new toy that day prior to the fit. That enforces the conditioning that "throw a fit==don't get what you want".
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:21PM (1 child)
Yes. "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is yet another example of Iron Age thinking that would be best retired.
Spanking is the wrong way to condition kids. It rarely works as supposedly intended, more often pushing the child into defiance and rebelliousness. Worse, it can break the spirit. And it can too easily be misused to feed an adult's secret sadistic streak or desire to take out their frustrations on someone who can't resist, rather than as a righteous consequence for misbehavior. Schools gave up on corporal punishment for all those reasons and more.
It also conditions the punishers, and corrodes society. It's part of the ancient East vs West debate, over which kind of society works better, a free society or a slave one? Over and over, people are tempted to go the slave route, as long as they get to be the masters. Funny how hardly anyone volunteers to be a slave. Apart from seeming more productive, it can also seem safer. But it infantilizes citizens. It's instructive to think about the tone Mubarak of Egypt took with the citizens, when he was falling from power during the Arab Spring. His whole attitude was that the citizens were ungrateful children. That's all too common with authoritarian leaders.
Sadly, Christianity has a decidedly authoritarian streak. The entire monotheistic setup, with a Big Man, the biggest of all, God, in charge of everything, the "Jesus is Lord" stuff-- these are the prayers of those who want their hands held and not to have to think for themselves, want to leave it all in God's hands. "Spare the rod, spoil the child" fits perfectly with such authoritarian thinking.
I won't forget the time the city taped a notice to my door, with the accusation that the grass in the lawn was too high. What really infuriated me was not the particular accusation, but the disrespectful tone of the notice. It threatened, intimidated, insulted, made unwarranted assumptions, even exaggerated to the point of lying, and most of all, talked down as if the recipients were naughty children who would be punished if they didn't stop misbehaving. I gave several city officials and politicians a long earful about that. I imagine most of my fellow citizens who receive such notices take a much more submissive and compliant attitude, more's the pity. The neighboring city actually escalated a lawn issue all the way to confinement, imprisoning a good citizen for the crime of not having mowed his lawn, and sadly, he didn't seem to think it was entirely unwarranted.
The way our law enforcement is handled furthers this mentality as well as feeds the Prison Industrial Complex. A finding such as this about teens adds to the pressure for reform. It's not just teens. Many an adult has also been pressured into confessing. See these articles about innocent suspects who were pushed into taking Alford pleas: https://www.propublica.org/series/ignoring-innocence [propublica.org]
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday March 19 2018, @11:12AM
>Sadly, Christianity has a decidedly authoritarian streak. The entire monotheistic setup, with a Big Man, the biggest of all, God, in charge of everything
then, why is He hiding?
A. because he does not exist?
You cannot criticize a religion basing on the rejection of its principles, because it's silly. You are already rejecting an impossible to verify statement, rationalizing the choice is a waste of time.
A. indeed, something does not compute...
This is better.
1. trying to wrestle authority from the god is trying to wrestle the dream from the dreamer.
2. among men the christian hierarchy is reversed, both in scripture which you obviously did not read and in tradition. Servus servorum.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:48PM (1 child)
Could you do that to an adult? Could a man slap his wife around a bit for disobeying him, as long as it didn't go too far? No? Then why the special pleading, here? Unless it's in self-defense or defense of another from physical aggression, violence is not the morally correct answer, regardless of whether or not you can get desirable results by using it. The ends do not justify the means, even assuming the ends are good.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:41AM
It has been a long time since a wife had even a perceived duty to obey, so of course corporal punishment for not obeying is out of bounds.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:31AM (1 child)
And locking someone away from everyone they love, treating them like dirt, and feeding them the crappiest thing you can find that someone is willing to call edible (someone who knows he will never be asked to eat it) for a few years somehow isn't torture?
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:58AM
I never said I'm in favor of the American prison system.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:17PM
Because no other form of punishment is nearly as profitable as prison, and profit is the true motive.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday March 17 2018, @01:59PM (27 children)
"teenagers should not be allowed to make deals where they face a lesser charge in return for pleading guilty"
Plea bargaining was originally intended to reduce the load on the courts. Unfortunately, in many cases, it seems to have evolved into blackmail. Rather than charging someone with the crime they actually might be guilty of, they pile on everything even remotely related: You're not only accused of theft, but also of resisting arrest, and assault, and lying to a federal officer, and anything else they can make up and throw at you. Defending against all that makes the situation even more ruinous - do you want to gamble that your overloaded public defender is competent enough, and cares enough to defend you? Or do you cut your loses and plead guilty the the actual charge of shoplifting a candy bar, whether or not you are actually guilty?
tl;dr: Really, no one should be allowed to make a deal. Every case should be prosecuted. If that overloads the courts, then maybe there are too many laws. Drop all victimless crimes, crimes where the perpetrator themselves is the victim (drug abuse, teen sexting), laws restricting activity between consenting adults (prostitution, gambling), and continue from there. Allow prosecutors to name exactly one charge to prosecute. Continue simplifying from there, until the courts can deal with the load.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:40PM (26 children)
A friend of mine is in this position right now. He was charged with shoplifting and is not guilty. (I won't go into details but there is evidence of his innocence.) He can fight it, and face stiff penalties, or take a plea deal with known, and less expensive, penalties. As it's not a class A misdemeanor in this state (considering the dollar amount) there is no public defender available and he can't afford legal fees.
If it were me, I'd have no problem fighting it in court but that's me. His first response was to plead guilty to get it over with. Now he's considering fighting it but figuring out all the things that an attorney knows isn't easy. He has to respond to discovery requests from the state, figure out how to get video evidence from the store involved and to present that in court. He needs to understand the law as there is one word in the statute that gives him a defense. He didn't even know how to look up the statute. He also needs to file things in a timely manner though a court may sometimes cut some slack when you're pro se. Where I live, it's been said, prosecutors will routinely drop cases from a class A to a class B misdemeanor to prevent those accused from receiving a public defender.
In short, for the layman to tackle the legal system one has to have to have knowledge, strength and be fearless. For him, a plea deal looks good. If he were guilty I'd agree. Given the facts, he's not. And he can't afford anything on his record. Bad place to be in.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:05PM (2 children)
Shoplifting?! Hahahahah, come on, man. At least man up and do the crime the cool kids do -- vandalism.
Shoplifting is the "mommy and daddy don't pay any attention to me" crime. Unless that shoplifting involves bringing a truck or panel van up to the warehouse and taking off with boxes and pallets of merchandise.
LP (loss-prevention) is no fucking joke in modern retail. They have a Stazi and NSA-like array of human and technical resources at their grasp. Even decades ago, at any given moment, any LP operator could remote in to any store and look through any camera they wished.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
As someone who has shoplifted, in my case it was the "I can't afford to buy enough food" crime. And I was never even close to being caught. Apparently, this is relatively common, as grocers experience a lot more of what they term "shrinkage" than most retailers: about 1/15 of their inventory is lost or stolen.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:47PM
A friend of mine would steal ~100$ worth of steal and liquor daily from local grocery stores. Now the steaks have anti theft devices on them.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday March 17 2018, @03:49PM (4 children)
Regardless of his actions and the results, he will never get any good employment. I hope he understands and plans his future life accordingly.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:48PM (2 children)
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)
You only think it's dumb, because you don't understand how background checks work. The background check looks for "arrest records", not "convictions". The police maintain records of arrests, independently of any court records. An arrest is a permanent record. You will be barred from a lot of lucrative employment based on an arrest record. Unless, of course, you know the right people, and blow the right people. Who you know, and who you blow, count for more than a record sometimes.
“Take me to the Brig. I want to see the “real Marines”. – Major General Chesty Puller, USMC
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:03PM
Even if true it's pretty dumb! :)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:50PM
Yep. Being accused of any kind of theft is worse than being convicted of murder for a lot of jobs.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:49PM (4 children)
If you stick it out long enough, the deals will tend to get better because there is more and more pressure from the prosecutors office to get that case closed and off the books. Plus, they don't want to slow down the factory in order to actually take a case like that to trial (the real exception depends on where he "stole" from, as certain store make donations to various charities to make sure cases get prosecuted). But one thing I would do, if he hasn't already, is look up the Criminal Rules of Procedure. The rules for prosecutors and defendants are very different. Additionally, what the defendant has to turn over usually changes depending on what they ask for in discovery themselves. For example, in my state a defendant does not have to turn over any discovery if they don't ask for any. But, your friend may weigh the pros and cons and decide that his own discovery against the prosecutors office is worth it. But I'll admit that I look at crap like that all day and still have to check the rules applicable to my area because they are so technical. Oh and if a trial looks close, be sure to check the Rules of Evidence, as that controls what the prosecutor can actually present, which can be very different from what they threaten to present.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:02PM (3 children)
Absolutely. I will be helping my friend if he wants it and I've already become familiar with the Rules of Procedure for my state. I will be drafting a letter this weekend requesting copies of evidence referenced during discovery documents provided by the prosecutors office. I know where to find the Rules of Evidence and will study those as well. In this particular case there is no upside to taking a plea deal as there is no threat of jail time and the stakes are too high to warrant doing so. There will be a pre-trial conference with the prosecutor which I will attend and we're going to go for some other options besides trial or plea deal (nothing that results in a conviction or plea deal to a misdemeanor charge.) However, we will make it clear that if we can't come up with something we all agree on that we're going to trial. We'll be expecting, and willing to receive, the worst. But we will fight for the best. Now, if I thought for a second my friend was guilty I wouldn't waste my time :)
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:54PM (2 children)
IANAL but I've had to study and prepare for court (pro se) a few times. I believe the plaintiff must file all discovery documents with the court, and prove they have sent copies to defendant. You have to be able / allowed to prove your innocence, and to do that you need all evidence well before court. Anything plaintiff files late, or tries to bring to court that wasn't copied to defendant can and should be inadmissible and the case possibly thrown out.
The US "legal" system is much more of a game of rules than it is a quest for truth and justice. Winning or losing on a "technicality" is horrible (says the man who has won more than once on technicalities...)
This is not advice, just imagining possible paths, but it's possible you do better to be silent and let the prosecution do their thing, keep very close watch, notes, and records, don't give them anything, do lots of research and prepare a good defense. If the court date comes, maybe they will have mis-stepped and you'll win on technicality. But don't expect the court/judge to point out the technicality- you have to point it out, then make "motion for dismissal" on grounds of conflicting / faulty "evidence", etc. I dunno...
If there are prosecution witnesses, and obviously there will be, by all means cross examine them as "hostile" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @07:09PM (1 child)
Well, I agree with you as far as not showing all your cards. However, it must be known that you're willing to take it to the mat. I'll never appear to operate from fear. I appreciate your input very much and will incorporate it into our strategy, where applicable.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:43PM
Cool, thanks. My only concern is that you're on their turf, and they're very aggressive, gotta win at all costs. They'll lie and cheat because they're pretty sure they'll get away with it. They love intimidating. You can't hide that you're willing to fight, but don't inspire them, it won't help your cause.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @04:51PM (1 child)
If this is true, why doesn't he look for a lawyer who willing to take a pro-bono case and sue for false arrest? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @05:03PM
Because there was no arrest, only a summons given. Had he been taken to the station that would be different.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 17 2018, @06:53PM
The state should always be forced to provide you with an public defender if they're the ones charging you. It's yet another example of how corrupt and unjust our system is.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @08:26PM (9 children)
The Gideon [wikipedia.org] decision applies in virtually all criminal cases, and the state must provide counsel if the defendant cannot afford to hire his own.
If this is a misdemeanor where there is potential for either jail time or probation (cf. Alabama v. Shelton [wikipedia.org]) SCOTUS has affirmed that counsel *must* be provided. As such, Either this is a "violation" (like a moving violation), in which case it's not a "criminal" action and/or the penalties are just fines and/or community service, you/your friend are woefully uninformed, or your scenario is just bullshit.
I suppose that whatever state you are in could be flouting Gideon/Alabama v. Shelton, but if that were the case, rafts of lawyers would be happy to take this case up pro-bono, as it's a clear violation of the fifth and sixth amendments via the 14th amendment.
Gideon has been the law of the land since 1963 and Alabama v. Shelton since 2002.
N.B.: IANAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by black6host on Saturday March 17 2018, @10:51PM (3 children)
Thank you. As stated earlier there is no threat of jail time or probation.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 17 2018, @11:09PM (2 children)
My pleasure.
All the same, I went back and read the post to which I replied and did not see a reference to what specific penalties were at play.
If I missed that, my apologies. Although it may be instructive for others in a situation similar to your friends' to know what the law is, especially if jail and/or probation are at issue.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by black6host on Sunday March 18 2018, @03:10PM (1 child)
In his case, worst case scenario are fines. I believe up to 1200 USD is possible. However, along with that comes the guilty conviction. If he pleads out he'll still have to pay. So there's not a huge downside to fighting it for him. There are other options we can go for, file it and dump it after a year if no further incidents, drop it to a violation, etc. But a plea deal is not one of them :)
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday March 19 2018, @12:37AM
That's good. I'm not sure where you are, but where I am, this sort of thing (assuming no real previous criminal record) often gets classed as "adjournment contemplating dismissal" which lines up with your "file it and dump it after a year." I'm surprised that the prosecutor hasn't suggested that him/herself.
It seems odd that the retailer and the prosecutor have been such huge pricks about this. I suspect that there's more to this (not necessarily that he's guilty, but prosecutors, at least around here, have better things to do with their time than pounding on petty theft) than you're saying, or the prosecutor has *way* too much time on his hands.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @04:56AM (4 children)
In many states, you have to be pretty much homeless to be considered "unable to afford an attorney".
As far as they are concerned, it's fine if you end up homeless BECAUSE you hired an attorney.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @05:07AM (3 children)
And which states might those be?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 18 2018, @07:37AM (1 child)
Virginia for one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Sunday March 18 2018, @08:21AM
An individual whose income is US15,175.00 or less (plus US$5,400.00 per additional household member) is eligible for court appointed counsel in Virginia [state.va.us].
That limiting amount may be increased based on specific expenses that a criminal defendant may have such as medical expenses, child support and certain other expenses.
This seems a bit harsh, but what's even worse, if a defendant is convicted, they are then charged their attorney's fees on top of any fines, court fees and other fees associated with their conviction/imprisonment/probation, etc.
That sucks pretty bad. And is probably a big reason why so many folks in VA choose to either plead guilty without a lawyer or waive a lawyer at trial.
That's pretty unfair, IMHO. But there are other things that make this situation even more unfair:
1. Prosecutors not only have their own investigators on staff, they have the police to investigate for them as well;
2. Prosecutor have wide discretion with respect to charges, indictments and whether or not to prosecute;
3. Prosecutors have significant leeway in the timing of their responses to discovery requests, often holding back exculpatory information as they seek to force a plea bargain.
Defense attorneys don't have (well, unless you have the money to pay for 1) any of those resources available. Especially in cases where an indigent defendant has a court-appointed attorney.
This is supposed to be an adversarial system, but prosecutors have the decked stacked in their favor. Amazingly, a prosecutor in New Orleans even started charging public defenders and their investigators for doing their due diligence in defending their clients. [theguardian.com]
This just points up the general Fuck the poor [soylentnews.org] attitude we have in the US.
And while prison/conviction isn't an issue in civil cases, they can be just as devastating to a poor person, as they don't even have an opportunity to get a court-appointed lawyer.
All of this disproportionately disadvantages poorer people and makes them easy marks in both criminal and civil courts.
We pay for prosecutors and the support systems they have to put folks away, but if an adversarial system isn't fair, it ceases to provide justice -- rather it makes a mockery of it.
I believe that both prosecutors and court-appointed attorneys should be drawn from the same pool of lawyers, with equal time on both sides for all the lawyers. What's more, investigators in the prosecutors office should also be assigned to the lawyers currently on the defense side as well -- with the prohibition that they can't work both sides of the same case.
This would level the playing field somewhat and would likely be a good start in having a justice system that actually produces justice.
But most people won't go for that, because while they give lip service to the idea of a "fair trial" and "justice" they are unwilling to pay for it. Because too many consider those who are poor to be less than human and undeserving of equal treatment. For shame!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 18 2018, @12:42PM
In Georgia, you must have an income below the federal poverty line. Unless you have anything of value you can sell. You must pay a $50 application fee. If you are convicted, you will be charged for the lawyer.
That when someone earning right at the poverty line can easily spend a year's income in legal fees before even reaching trial.
(Score: 5, Informative) by turgid on Saturday March 17 2018, @02:52PM
One of the many things that the Conservative government in the UK cut in their Austerity programme was Legal Aid. This was some sort of public fund to help poor people fight legal cases. I seem to remember that you had to put up some money of your own, and the state would make a contribution. They raised the threshold so high that many people now get taken to court, can't afford representation and don't qualify for Legal Aid. Quality news papers reported it at the time. So now you have more people being found guilty effectively by default. So much for justice. # Halls of justice painted green, money talking... #
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].