Running racism in America thread

The Big Ragu · Nov 21, 2021

Spartan Squad said: ↑

And that is one of the biggest things wrong with our legal system: The wealthier you are (or in this case, the better access to funds), the more likely you are to get a defense team who can afford to do this kind of prep. If you can’t afford it, you get a guy who barely has time to learn your name, forget run mock trials to figure out the best defense strategy. So we get people who didn’t commit a crime doing time and people who did being acquitted. Not saying the rich shouldn’t have access to the best lawyers, but the poor should have better access to a quality defense. It would lessen (but not eliminate) the inherent racism in the system that sees a disproportionate amount of people of color be incarcerated.
Click to expand...

I'm really sympathetic to what you are saying, but what we have with the public defender system is about as good as it is ever going to get for people without means to afford a better defense. And those public defenders are always going to have burdensome case loads and fewer resources. Pointing that out is important; it can never be pointed out enough. But it's an unrealistic answer to do the pie-in-the-sky, "poor people need better lawyers" windmill fight. Instead, in my opinion, we should be looking at the reason we have so many people going through the criminal justice system in the first place, what exactly it is we are criminalizing and instead of saying, "We need to beef up the defenses they get," we should instead be weakening the resources those law enforcement and prosecutors offices routinely assert when they want to squeeze someone they target. Here's the reality: I don't think our prisons are largely filled with people doing time for crimes they didn't commit, at least in so much as what we have decided to criminalize. I think the more typical thing that happens is the prosecutor, which can afford to take months and throw assistant DAs at someone while they waste away in jail without bail, will come at someone with serious charges that can put the person in prison for decades. And we have made our criminal justice system so pliable that they can essentially charge whatever they want and work their way down from there. The public defender, who is overburdened and just sees a case file they want to clear, then pushes the person to plea to something that carries much less time, and these defendants aren't stupid, they see what happens to people who don't take the plea. So they end up shuttled through the system into a prison industry that keeps the product (convicts) coming through.

So the differences if you have the means to play within the system that those poor people don't, are that 1) you can make bail, and 2) With good legal resources you have a much better chance of fighting an overcharge, and it's often more to your benefit to roll the dice.

Want to even out things? Don't offer unrealistic solutions (that can't be paid for) that expand the system. I think it makes much more sense to start cutting the resources and unfair tools that prosecutors have. It should be difficult for them to squeeze someone into a plea. And if it is, the incentive for them is to be much more discriminating about who they target and what they charge and how they go about prosecuting. And if that happens, it means the prison system, which is a giant corrupt game that keeps getting bigger and bigger because it is feeding money to some entities that are invested in getting politicians to keep it growing, might get back under control.

I agree with you about how he (or anyone) should have access to the best lawyers and defense they can avail themselves of. I think the greatest things about our criminal / legal system is that if you are able to, you can mount the strongest defense you possibly can and the process in its purest form is skewed much more to a presumption of innocence. If you do fight a charge, the prosecution has to meet some difficult standards to take away someone's freedom.

2muchcoffeeman · Nov 21, 2021

I skipped right past who wrote the preceding post but still knew who it was within 8 seconds.

Azrael · Nov 21, 2021

As dopesick and gunsick and godsick and racesick and moneysick and heartsick and Trumpsick as this country is, I'm not sure we make it.

Argue me out of my despair.

Spartan Squad · Nov 21, 2021

The Big Ragu said: ↑

I'm really sympathetic to what you are saying, but what we have with the public defender system is about as good as it is ever going to get for people without means to afford a better defense. And those public defenders are always going to have burdensome case loads and fewer resources. Pointing that out is important; it can never be pointed out enough. But it's an unrealistic answer to do the pie-in-the-sky, "poor people need better lawyers" windmill fight. Instead, in my opinion, we should be looking at the reason we have so many people going through the criminal justice system in the first place, what exactly it is we are criminalizing and instead of saying, "We need to beef up the defenses they get," we should instead be weakening the resources those law enforcement and prosecutors offices routinely assert when they want to squeeze someone they target. Here's the reality: I don't think our prisons are largely filled with people doing time for crimes they didn't commit, at least in so much as what we have decided to criminalize. I think the more typical thing that happens is the prosecutor, which can afford to take months and throw assistant DAs at someone while they waste away in jail without bail, will come at someone with serious charges that can put the person in prison for decades. And we have made our criminal justice system so pliable that they can essentially charge whatever they want and work their way down from there. The public defender, who is overburdened and just sees a case file they want to clear, then pushes the person to plea to something that carries much less time, and these defendants aren't stupid, they see what happens to people who don't take the plea. So they end up shuttled through the system into a prison industry that keeps the product (convicts) coming through.

So the differences if you have the means to play within the system that those poor people don't, are that 1) you can make bail, and 2) With good legal resources you have a much better chance of fighting an overcharge, and it's often more to your benefit to roll the dice.

Want to even out things? Don't offer unrealistic solutions (that can't be paid for) that expand the system. I think it makes much more sense to start cutting the resources and unfair tools that prosecutors have. It should be difficult for them to squeeze someone into a plea. And if it is, the incentive for them is to be much more discriminating about who they target and what they charge and how they go about prosecuting. And if that happens, it means the prison system, which is a giant corrupt game that keeps getting bigger and bigger because it is feeding money to some entities that are invested in getting politicians to keep it growing, might get back under control.

I agree with you about how he (or anyone) should have access to the best lawyers and defense they can avail themselves of. I think the greatest things about our criminal / legal system is that if you are able to, you can mount the strongest defense you possibly can and the process in its purest form is skewed much more to a presumption of innocence. If you do fight a charge, the prosecution has to meet some difficult standards to take away someone's freedom.
Click to expand...

So I agree that among the problems that contribute to the disparity is what we criminalize or what we harshly penalize. So that will help.

But asking me for solutions that don’t cost something is asking me to play with a loaded deck and blame me for inevitably losing. The issue I see with public defenders of the fact they are overworked and often push for deals because unless it’s a for sure they can get the case tossed, they are hesitant to go to trial. So people with no money take a deal just to have it over with because they fear it being worse. It shouldn’t be that way. You’re right they shouldn’t squeeze someone into a deal, but they do.

But to your point, this isn’t simply a throw more money at one side of the problem and expect to fix the inherent problems in the system. And honestly there’s so much outside of the music system that we could fix that would help this too. It isn’t one thing. But it is a problem that we have those who can afford to stay out of jail and those who can’t. It isn’t how our system should have been, but it’s what we have.

Starman · Nov 21, 2021

Songbird said: ↑

Not to lol but hasn't this story but written 48 times in the last 5 years after "(Insert Shooter's) Case Highlights the Nation's Deep Division Over Gun Rights"

400 million guns. Anything to try to take them away ain't happening.
Click to expand...

Some of them need to be put to better use.

heyabbott · Nov 21, 2021

The Big Ragu said: ↑

I'm really sympathetic to what you are saying, but what we have with the public defender system is about as good as it is ever going to get for people without means to afford a better defense. And those public defenders are always going to have burdensome case loads and fewer resources. Pointing that out is important; it can never be pointed out enough. But it's an unrealistic answer to do the pie-in-the-sky, "poor people need better lawyers" windmill fight. Instead, in my opinion, we should be looking at the reason we have so many people going through the criminal justice system in the first place, what exactly it is we are criminalizing and instead of saying, "We need to beef up the defenses they get," we should instead be weakening the resources those law enforcement and prosecutors offices routinely assert when they want to squeeze someone they target. Here's the reality: I don't think our prisons are largely filled with people doing time for crimes they didn't commit, at least in so much as what we have decided to criminalize. I think the more typical thing that happens is the prosecutor, which can afford to take months and throw assistant DAs at someone while they waste away in jail without bail, will come at someone with serious charges that can put the person in prison for decades. And we have made our criminal justice system so pliable that they can essentially charge whatever they want and work their way down from there. The public defender, who is overburdened and just sees a case file they want to clear, then pushes the person to plea to something that carries much less time, and these defendants aren't stupid, they see what happens to people who don't take the plea. So they end up shuttled through the system into a prison industry that keeps the product (convicts) coming through.

So the differences if you have the means to play within the system that those poor people don't, are that 1) you can make bail, and 2) With good legal resources you have a much better chance of fighting an overcharge, and it's often more to your benefit to roll the dice.

Want to even out things? Don't offer unrealistic solutions (that can't be paid for) that expand the system. I think it makes much more sense to start cutting the resources and unfair tools that prosecutors have. It should be difficult for them to squeeze someone into a plea. And if it is, the incentive for them is to be much more discriminating about who they target and what they charge and how they go about prosecuting. And if that happens, it means the prison system, which is a giant corrupt game that keeps getting bigger and bigger because it is feeding money to some entities that are invested in getting politicians to keep it growing, might get back under control.

I agree with you about how he (or anyone) should have access to the best lawyers and defense they can avail themselves of. I think the greatest things about our criminal / legal system is that if you are able to, you can mount the strongest defense you possibly can and the process in its purest form is skewed much more to a presumption of innocence. If you do fight a charge, the prosecution has to meet some difficult standards to take away someone's freedom.
Click to expand...

And with all that, most crimes go unpunished. Women and children are regularly called liars, frauds and money grabbers who complain of sexual assault. Most home burglaries and car thefts are not solved. About half of murder cases do not even result in an arrest.
As overworked as public defenders are, state prosecutors have it much worse. And in jurisdictions that have the most crime local governments do not adequately fund prosecutors. And in cities like Philadelphia, the elected prosecutor is antagonistic to both the police and professional prosecutors. It’s like electing Ted Cruz as President of the NAACP

Azrael · Nov 21, 2021

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2021/11/guns-atlanta-airport-tsa-nra/?

thread here:

garrow · Nov 21, 2021

Blue City, early October 2024. At a rally in downtown in support of the Democratic presidential ticket, a man from out of state guns down multiple people. He claims self defense.

Blue City, mid-October, 2024. At a rally in downtown in support of the Democratic presidential ticket, a man from out of state guns down multiple people. He claims self defense.

Blue City, late-October, 2024. At a rally in downtown in support of the Democratic presidential ticket, a man from out of state guns down multiple people. He claims self defense.

Smallpotatoes · Nov 21, 2021

DanOregon · Nov 21, 2021

The weird thing about the Rittenhouse case was that it was in response to the Jacob Blake shooting. Blake had a warrant out for domestic sexual assault, the police were alerted to the scene by his girlfriend, he resisted arrest, was tasered and he tried to flee the scene with his kids in the car. Don't know what else the police were expected to do at that point. People who knew him best felt threatened by him.
Obviously it came on the heels of the Floyd killing - but at what point do you say Blake wasn't exactly a victim and was unworthy of the protest?

Mngwa · Nov 21, 2021

DanOregon said: ↑

The weird thing about the Rittenhouse case was that it was in response to the Jacob Blake shooting. Blake had a warrant out for domestic sexual assault, the police were alerted to the scene by his girlfriend, he resisted arrest, was tasered and he tried to flee the scene with his kids in the car. Don't know what else the police were expected to do at that point. People who knew him best felt threatened by him.
Obviously it came on the heels of the Floyd killing - but at what point do you say Blake wasn't exactly a victim and was unworthy of the protest?
Click to expand...

They shot him multiple times in the back.

DanOregon · Nov 22, 2021

I saw the video. He was attempting to flee in a vehicle with his kids in the back - whether he had a knife or not, it was more than reasonable for the officer to conclude he was a threat to the kids safety.

Log in or Sign up

Running racism in America thread

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

garrow Well-Known Member

Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Mngwa Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Running racism in America thread

The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

2muchcoffeeman Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

Starman Well-Known Member

heyabbott Well-Known Member

Azrael Well-Known Member

garrow Well-Known Member

Smallpotatoes Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Mngwa Well-Known Member

DanOregon Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches