Our Criminal Justice System Has Become a Crime

Lavender Room
1

That’s the title of an interesting current article in USA Today by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, of Instapundit fame. I’m respecting the story’s copyright by not quoting it in its entirety, but here are some highlights:

  1. With so many vague laws on the books, the average citizen commits around three felonies a day, so prosecutors can always find some dirt on anyone they wish to indict. So they gather dozens or hundreds of charges and have them rubber-stamped by a grand jury.

  2. The accused is then offered a choice between a plea bargain and a trial where the jury is apt to convict based on the theory that “where there’s smoke there must be fire.” The vast majority of cases therefore end up with a plea bargain.

  3. The “prosecutorial targeting of disfavored groups or individuals” is accepted by the public under the premise that “if you can’t do the time,” you shouldn’t “do the crime.” But as mentioned above, we’re all technically committing crimes all the time, which makes that premise highly suspect.

  4. The professor doesn’t just complain. He suggests some remedies.

As Glenn would say, “read the whole thing.”

2

Why do you hate freedom?

3

Wait a minute, does this finally mean that you agree with my claim; you fit the definition of a criminal? :wink:

10 Likes
4

Hmmm. Thanks for the post.

Here’s an odd note: the writer is a University of Tennessee Law professor. UT Law is one of a few law schools that attract/graduate right-leaning students/lawyers.

6 Likes
5

I’d agree with you, but in the past others here have objected whenever I’ve pointed out that we all commit crimes regularly.

The real issue, of course, is that the presence of so many crimes on the books makes justice very subjective and anything but impartial.

9 Likes
6

Hmmm. Thanks for the post.

Here’s an odd note: the writer is a University of Tennessee Law professor. UT Law is one of a few law schools that attract/graduate right-leaning students/lawyers.
In the past, I think most people would have tended to regard any sympathy for defendants as tending to be left-wing rather than right-wing. I’m not sure that’s still true these days.

5 Likes
7

In the past, I think most people would have tended to regard any sympathy for defendants as tending to be left-wing rather than right-wing. I’m not sure that’s still true these days.

I don’t think this is a right/left issue, and if we treat it that way, we’re doing something wrong.** **(We probably will treat it that way, because we treat everything that way now.)

The real issue, of course, is that the presence of so many crimes on the books makes justice very subjective and anything but impartial.

True, but I think we should reflect on what led us to this condition. There is the inevitable tendency of those in the government to expand their power. I think there is also the fact that a lot of people *want *it this way. They want rule by law, rather than the rule of law. They want to be able to control virtually every aspect of people’s lives. They want to be able to punish those who behave in ways they disapprove. Every action or thought they find objectionable must come under legal control, every problem is a suitable object of governmental action.

The problem, ultimately, is us.

8 Likes
8

In the past, I think most people would have tended to regard any sympathy for defendants as tending to be left-wing rather than right-wing. I’m not sure that’s still true these days.

QFT.

3 Likes
9

In the past, I think most people would have tended to regard any sympathy for defendants as tending to be left-wing rather than right-wing. I’m not sure that’s still true these days.

I don’t think this is a right/left issue, and if we treat it that way, we’re doing something wrong.** **(We probably will treat it that way, because we treat everything that way now.)
I think that treating issues as right/left is wrong in general, simply because those categories aren’t based on any kind of underlying principles; they’re purely sociological and therefore highly fleeting.

**The real issue, of course, is that the presence of so many crimes on the books makes justice very subjective and anything but impartial. **

True, but I think we should reflect on what led us to this condition. There is the inevitable tendency of those in the government to expand their power. I think there is also the fact that a lot of people *want *it this way. They want rule by law, rather than the rule of law. They want to be able to control virtually every aspect of people’s lives. They want to be able to punish those who behave in ways they disapprove. Every action or thought they find objectionable must come under legal control, every problem is a suitable object of governmental action.

The problem, ultimately, is us.
Or many of us. But not all of us take that attitude, and for those of us that don’t, reforms like Reynolds suggests make sense.

BTW, the attitude you describe, namely, that “every problem is a suitable object of governmental action,” is exactly what I’ve referred to as the Fallacy of Political Reductionism.

3 Likes
10

I’m sure some people do, but not the majority. I don’t think anybody argues the justice system is perfect. Some may say it works given the circumstance, but I don’t know anybody who say no changes are needed.

Where we do see deviation based largely on political ideology is punishment. I would argue that liberals tend to view the penal system as rehabilitation, conservatives as punishment, and a whole lot in between.

11

Or many of us. But not all of us take that attitude, and for those of us that don’t, reforms like Reynolds suggests make sense.

No, not all of us take that attitude. But it is the prevailing attitude today, and that’s what counts.

As for Reynolds’ suggestions, they’re interesting. But I think some are unwise, and none will work.

His worst idea is probably the proposal to make the prosecutor pay for the legal costs of defendants found innocent. I’m not a lawyer, as JSA will soon point out, but even I can see that such a policy would have a boatload of unintended consequences. A chilling effect on even legitimate but uncertain prosecutions is the most obvious. And do you think it might influence what type of defendants prosecutors choose to charge?

His suggestion to strip prosecutors of immunity would be ineffective, I think.

I don’t know what he means when he says juries and grand juries should be “empowered.” They’re empowered now. The problem isn’t their lack of empowerment, it’s their lack of will to exercise their power.

I have no problem with disclosing plea bargain offers during trial. It might help around the margins.

BTW, the attitude you describe, namely, that “every problem is a suitable object of governmental action,” is exactly what I’ve referred to as the Fallacy of Political Reductionism.

I think I’ve referred to it more bluntly as totalitarianism.

2 Likes
12

In the past, I think most people would have tended to regard any sympathy for defendants as tending to be left-wing rather than right-wing. I’m not sure that’s still true these days.

QFT.

Quit Fucking Trying? Really, Duffy…

1 Like
13
  1. With so many vague laws on the books, the average citizen commits around three felonies a day, so prosecutors can always find some dirt on anyone they wish to indict. So they gather dozens or hundreds of charges and have them rubber-stamped by a grand jury.

I’ve made a similar statement here many times using the example of tax filings and Automotive code. While I’m strictly guessing here I suspect that a decent majority of the cars that pull off of car lots are in one way or another breaking laws. Personally I’ve been given a warning for a license plate holder…that was put on by the dealer on new car we bought.

Tax code, unless you’re filing a 1040 EZ, I’d bet everyone is in one way or another breaking the law.

The idea that the same is true at the felony level is pretty disconcerting although I suspect if you’re convicted of “Fraudulently” filing taxes that may be a felony. God knows the penalties and fines are equal to what you would expect to pay if you committed a felony.

~Matt

2 Likes
14

. Personally I’ve been given a warning for a license plate holder…that was put on by the dealer on new car we bought.

Haha I had the exact same thing happen! Also, the dealership I bought it from was owned by denny hecker, Who is now in prison for breaking all sorts of laws more important than the license plate frame covering up too much of the tabs.

15

True, but I think we should reflect on what led us to this condition. There is the inevitable tendency of those in the government to expand their power.

I actually tend to believe that the gain of power is generally a symptom rather then the goal.

The goal in almost every case, and in most cases a noble goal, is to attempt to create some outcome. However as we all know in order to ensure any outcome you must have control over the process that effects that outcome. In order to have the outcome of a yummy cookie you can’t just allow the ingredients to act on their own accord, the oven to set itself etc etc. No, rather you have to direct the ingredients, set the oven temperature and on and on. In short a policy is passed that says “We want yummy cookies”…and who could possibly argue with the idea of everyone having yummy cookies. The people that pass this policy are not “Seeking power” and in most cases actually believe they have passed a “Good policy”…again, who doesn’t like yummy cookies.

However at some point they look around and no one is getting yummy cookies. The flour is over there doing nothing or making bread. The oven, rather then being at 375F is at 150F and is keeping a roast warm rather then baking yummy cookies.

Well we’ve already stated we want yummy cookies and that people should be making yummy cookies, but we aren’t getting them, so now we have to pass policy that controls the oven, controls the flour, the chocolate chips, the butter, the mixer and on and on and on. Eventually you’re controlling the power plant to make sure that the proper amount of electricity is being sent to the proper houses and bakeries so that the cookies can be made so people can have yummy cookies.

It is only after many of these laws are passed do people start attempting to “Gain power” and in most cases, as we see with numerous lobbying groups, Billions spent on campaigns etc etc, no really to gain power but to simply regain that control which has been taken from them. Clearly however in some cases this can lead to a “Power grab” as we now have a controlled system with centralized power. Not surprisingly often times those that are really interested in this power do so on the grounds that “Only I can really fix the problem. Only I can REALLY get you those yummy cookies you’ve been promised”…further concentrating the power.

The problem, ultimately, is us.

I think this is absolutely true, but for the most part I don’t think people understand why they are the problem. Most people truly believe that given enough control to someone can actually get them yummy cookies.

~Matt

3 Likes
16

His worst idea is probably the proposal to make the prosecutor pay for the legal costs of defendants found innocent. I’m not a lawyer, as JSA will soon point out, but even I can see that such a policy would have a boatload of unintended consequences. A chilling effect on even legitimate but uncertain prosecutions is the most obvious. And do you think it might influence what type of defendants prosecutors choose to charge?
I don’t think that any system that forces innocent people to forfeit thousands of dollars from their life savings and fails to reimburse them deserves to be called a “justice system.”

**BTW, the attitude you describe, namely, that “every problem is a suitable object of governmental action,” is exactly what I’ve referred to as the **Fallacy of Political Reductionism.

I think I’ve referred to it more bluntly as totalitarianism.
I think most people use the term “totalitarianism” to refer to a political system, whereas “Fallacy of Political Reductionism” refers to a (confused) way of thinking. But it’s true that the one naturally leads to the other.

17

In the past, I think most people would have tended to regard any sympathy for defendants as tending to be left-wing rather than right-wing. I’m not sure that’s still true these days.

QFT.

Quit Fucking Trying? Really, Duffy…

Quoted For Truth, ya poopie head.

18

I don’t know what he means when he says juries and grand juries should be “empowered.” They’re empowered now. The problem isn’t their lack of empowerment, it’s their lack of will to exercise their power.

Someone, earlier, mentioned the idea of having a professional foremen on juries. Professional foreman might not be the correct term that was used, but the idea was to have someone provided to the jury who understands law and the judical process who would assist the jury with it’s empowered status.

19

This topic has been summarized in a single question: If the police are there to serve and protect, why - at the sight of law enforcement officers - are the primary emotions experienced by a typical individual fear and panic?

2 Likes
20

A good question, although some here will probably chalk that up to paranoia.