Guilty and charged....

[Bikewer]

Listened to the opening segment of a week-long series on NPR (Morning Edition) this morning.

Has to do with a rising trend in criminal justice; charging defendants/convicts for most all the aspects of dealing with them.
For instance, in some states, one might:
1. Be required to pay for a jury trial. A jury of 12 costing more than a jury of 6)
2. Be required to pay (15.00 daily) for monitoring devices like an ankle bracelet.
3. Be required to pay for a public defender.

And many more fees and charges for various "services".

Failure to pay these fees often results in arrest, much the same as failure to pay "fines and costs" after a trial would. Since the majority of defendants in such criminal matters are already poor, this is extremely burdensome, and as a result a disportionately large number of such defendants end up in jail anyway..... Where of course they reside at taxpayer expense.
(We haven't gotten to the point of having people pay for room and board while in jail, but the article mentioned that some states are thinking along these lines.

This brings up the specter of all sorts of past abuses. Most are familiar with the "debtor's prisons" of the 19th century, and the problems with that system.
I recall reading a book on the history of imprisonment; this sort of thing was very common in the 1800s. Prisoners were often charged rent for the restraints applied to them. A woodcut of the period showed a poor fellow wearing dozens of cuffs and leg-irons, all of which he was required to pay for.

This is all being done in the name of cost-saving, of course, with huge numbers of incarcerated in this country and local-level criminal justice systems strapped for cash.

I have mentioned before that IMO our criminal justice system is seriously broken... This seems to me to be yet another symptom of it's problems.
"Let's create a large, permanent underclass of citizens who will never be able to be productive members of society. That'll stop crime!"

 

[bruto]

Listened to the opening segment of a week-long series on NPR (Morning Edition) this morning.

Has to do with a rising trend in criminal justice; charging defendants/convicts for most all the aspects of dealing with them.
For instance, in some states, one might:
1. Be required to pay for a jury trial. A jury of 12 costing more than a jury of 6)
2. Be required to pay (15.00 daily) for monitoring devices like an ankle bracelet.
3. Be required to pay for a public defender.

And many more fees and charges for various "services".

Failure to pay these fees often results in arrest, much the same as failure to pay "fines and costs" after a trial would. Since the majority of defendants in such criminal matters are already poor, this is extremely burdensome, and as a result a disportionately large number of such defendants end up in jail anyway..... Where of course they reside at taxpayer expense.
(We haven't gotten to the point of having people pay for room and board while in jail, but the article mentioned that some states are thinking along these lines.

This brings up the specter of all sorts of past abuses. Most are familiar with the "debtor's prisons" of the 19th century, and the problems with that system.
I recall reading a book on the history of imprisonment; this sort of thing was very common in the 1800s. Prisoners were often charged rent for the restraints applied to them. A woodcut of the period showed a poor fellow wearing dozens of cuffs and leg-irons, all of which he was required to pay for.

This is all being done in the name of cost-saving, of course, with huge numbers of incarcerated in this country and local-level criminal justice systems strapped for cash.

I have mentioned before that IMO our criminal justice system is seriously broken... This seems to me to be yet another symptom of it's problems.
"Let's create a large, permanent underclass of citizens who will never be able to be productive members of society. That'll stop crime!"

I think someone utterly lacking in insight or irony watched Brazil.

Damn, they've gone metric again without telling us.

 

[shemp]

Listened to the opening segment of a week-long series on NPR (Morning Edition) this morning.

Has to do with a rising trend in criminal justice; charging defendants/convicts for most all the aspects of dealing with them.
For instance, in some states, one might:
1. Be required to pay for a jury trial. A jury of 12 costing more than a jury of 6)
2. Be required to pay (15.00 daily) for monitoring devices like an ankle bracelet.
3. Be required to pay for a public defender.

Isn't this last one blatantly unconstitutional? Suppose I'm arrested and state that I will refuse to pay for a public defender. Will they refuse to provide one? Or will they provide one, bill me for it, and then arrest me when I don't pay? And what happens then when I again state I will not pay for a public defender?

Idiotic. I think one of the biggest problems with the justice system is that we have large numbers of legislators who think it's more important to look like they're doing something about crime than actually doing something about it. They keep passing laws that only serve to create more criminals and fill the prisons beyond bursting.

 

[TimCallahan]

Listened to the opening segment of a week-long series on NPR (Morning Edition) this morning.

Has to do with a rising trend in criminal justice; charging defendants/convicts for most all the aspects of dealing with them.
For instance, in some states, one might:
1. Be required to pay for a jury trial. A jury of 12 costing more than a jury of 6)
2. Be required to pay (15.00 daily) for monitoring devices like an ankle bracelet.
3. Be required to pay for a public defender.
And many more fees and charges for various "services".

This is bizarre. The whole point of having public defenders is to make sure that defendants who are too poor to hire an attorney still get legal representation.

A few years ago, a friend of mine pled guilty to a charge that he had assaulted his wife during an argument. Though he considered himself innocent, he pled guilty because, had the case gone to trial, and he had been found guilty, the sentence would have been far greater. Thus, he was coerced into giving up his right to a trial by jury. It's outrageous to me that the penalty for a crime should be raised because a citizen demand a trial.

Failure to pay these fees often results in arrest, much the same as failure to pay "fines and costs" after a trial would. Since the majority of defendants in such criminal matters are already poor, this is extremely burdensome, and as a result a disportionately large number of such defendants end up in jail anyway..... Where of course they reside at taxpayer expense.
(We haven't gotten to the point of having people pay for room and board while in jail, but the article mentioned that some states are thinking along these lines.

Here's an idea, jail those "thinking along those lines" for assaulting the Constitution, then charge them room and board.

This brings up the specter of all sorts of past abuses. Most are familiar with the "debtor's prisons" of the 19th century, and the problems with that system.
I recall reading a book on the history of imprisonment; this sort of thing was very common in the 1800s. Prisoners were often charged rent for the restraints applied to them. A woodcut of the period showed a poor fellow wearing dozens of cuffs and leg-irons, all of which he was required to pay for.

This is all being done in the name of cost-saving, of course, with huge numbers of incarcerated in this country and local-level criminal justice systems strapped for cash.

I have mentioned before that IMO our criminal justice system is seriously broken... This seems to me to be yet another symptom of it's problems.
"Let's create a large, permanent underclass of citizens who will never be able to be productive members of society. That'll stop crime!"

Here's one solution. Make all recreational drugs legal for adults, with the condition that users be responsible for the consequences of their actions while under the influence.

 

[Brattus]

If a criminal is arrested then they are guilty.
They wouldn't be arrested if they weren't guilty.
We could save a lot more money if the police just drove that rotten scum straight to prison and let them rot.
There is no need for trials, judges or jury's.

 

[ravdin]

The criminal "justice" system has been reduced to window dressing for plea bargains. I'm not at all surprised that the state is further punishing people for putting it to the trouble of a trial by jury.

 

[mijopaalmc]

A few years ago, a friend of mine pled guilty to a charge that he had assaulted his wife during an argument. Though he considered himself innocent, he pled guilty because, had the case gone to trial, and he had been found guilty, the sentence would have been far greater. Thus, he was coerced into giving up his right to a trial by jury. It's outrageous to me that the penalty for a crime should be raised because a citizen demand a trial.

Errrr....no!

The fact that you could be found guilty of certain charges during a jury is in fact the way a jury trial is supposed to work.

Are you seriously suggesting that because the State offered him a lesser penalty for a, presumably, lesser charge that the State coerced him into pleading guilty so that he wouldn't risk the greater penalty for the greater charge?

 

[Cain]

Awwww, poor babies. Let's get them Obama-Lawyers. They already have Obamacare and Obama-phones...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

If a criminal is arrested then they are guilty.
They wouldn't be arrested if they weren't guilty.
We could save a lot more money if the police just drove that rotten scum straight to prison and let them rot.
There is no need for trials, judges or jury's.

Why bother sending the rotten scum to prison? Just put a bullet in it and save even more money!

 

[shemp]

Why bother sending the rotten scum to prison? Just put a bullet in it and save even more money!

Bullet waster! Guillotines are reusable!

 

[Morrigan]

Are you seriously suggesting that because the State offered him a lesser penalty for a, presumably, lesser charge that the State coerced him into pleading guilty so that he wouldn't risk the greater penalty for the greater charge?

He's no doubt suggesting that because that's what happens. Why should the state offer him a lesser penalty in the first place? If he's guilty of that crime, why should the penalty differ whether or not he confesses it?

 

[jasonpatterson]

Isn't this last one blatantly unconstitutional?

You've got the right to legal counsel but there's nothing that says it has to be provided to you for free. It's ridiculous to suppose that someone who can't afford rent can afford a criminal trial lawyer, but that's the law.

There was also the recent Supreme Court ruling, Kaley vs United States, that said that criminals couldn't argue against the freezing of their assets in order to pay for a criminal defense, even if there was no way to trace the assets to the crime. (In this case the Kaley's heard that they were going to be in legal trouble and took out a $0.5M loan on their house to establish a legal fund. The government was only able to trace at most $140k of the equity of the house to alleged illegal activity but froze it all, leaving them unable to pay for their preferred defense.)

So I get falsely accused of a crime, the government seizes everything I own, I'm not poor enough to get a free public defender but I'm also not able to pay my own lawyer because I've got nothing. That's seriously messed up.

 

[BardKesnit]

Isn't this last one blatantly unconstitutional? Suppose I'm arrested and state that I will refuse to pay for a public defender. Will they refuse to provide one? Or will they provide one, bill me for it, and then arrest me when I don't pay? And what happens then when I again state I will not pay for a public defender?

I don't know about all states, but where I work, you only have to pay the PD fee if you plead guilty or are convicted.

To answer your question, maybe. Fees for a PD are part of court costs, and you do have to pay court costs. However, where I practice, it is very unlikely that the court will put out a warrant on you solely for failure to pay costs. (However, the DMV will suspend your driver's license if you don't pay court costs.)

If a criminal is arrested then they are guilty.
They wouldn't be arrested if they weren't guilty.

You're joking (I hope), but there is a small element of truth in your statement. After I lost my first case, the Deputy Public Defender in my office pulled me aside and gave me a pep talk. One thing she said is "we are always starting off behind. If the evidence wasn't already on their side, they wouldn't be bringing charges and we would never get the case."

The criminal "justice" system has been reduced to window dressing for plea bargains. I'm not at all surprised that the state is further punishing people for putting it to the trouble of a trial by jury.

In defense of plea bargains, they are a big reason courts move as fast as they do. A simple bench trial can take an hour. Jury trials usually take at least a full day. Pleas take a few minutes.

He's no doubt suggesting that because that's what happens. Why should the state offer him a lesser penalty in the first place? If he's guilty of that crime, why should the penalty differ whether or not he confesses it?

It is to the state's benefit to get the case closed as quickly and efficiently as possible. It's to the defendant's benefit to get the best deal possible. If the evidence is against the defendant and there is little change of an acquittal at trial, it is in everyone's interest for the state to make an offer the defendant will accept. (If the state offers a crappy plea, the defendant is better off going to trial and taking a chance on the judge. After all, they have nothing to lose since the sentence would be the same anyway. And there is always the chance the judge will give a lighter sentence then the state offered.)

 

[commandlinegamer]

In the UK, IIRC, an early guilty plea may lead to a less severe sentence:

The level of reduction is at the discretion of the court, although sentencing guidelines require that the usual reduction will be one third where the guilty plea was entered at the first reasonable opportunity. A reduced discount of one quarter is suggested where the plea was only entered once a trial date had been set, and one tenth where the plea was entered “at the door of the court” or after the trial had begun.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...5974/reductions-in-sentence-for-a-guilty-plea

 

[anglolawyer]

A guilty plea does indeed earn credit in the UK. Why not? Good behaviour in prison should too. It's only smart to encourage co-operation because the opposite is worse.

The topic of the thread resonates with me because similarly strange things are happening in England and Wales. In the civil field, financial assistance to fund litigation is increasingly restricted with judges complaining that the courts are being flooded by litigants in person (who, because they don't know the system, tend to clog it up), court fees are rising to prohibitive levels and all kinds of deterrence is used to stop people going to court. In the criminal sphere, rates of pay have been cut so much the barristers are on strike and cases are being thrown out because of it.

Capitalism at its worst. A financial crisis caused by thieving bankers, weak politicians and a dumb and blind electorate results in the erosion of basic rights while the very rich and the multi-nationals freely shop around for tax havens to store their loot, invariably made in jurisdictions with robust legal systems that allowed them to acquire and protect it in the first place.