>This gives prosecutors
>unbridled power to coerce pleas -- you have to
>understand that if you go to trial, you pretty much go
>to jail. And if you are indicted, you are convicted.
>There is a 98% conviction rate in fed ct.
Justin puts his finger on the basic problem with the legal system. A legal system based on draconian minimum penalties for relatively minor offenses, combined with arbitrary discretion by the government about whether to prosecute, cannot be reconciled with the notion of the rule of law.
This system makes the US, for all practical purposes, a police state. The law is not applied without fear or favour, as it must for it to be defined as a jurisdiction operating under the rule of law. The law is applied arbitrarily, quite brazenly, to punish and control those who do not co-operate with the authorities, or perhaps simply against those whose skin is the wrong colour.
It is sickening to hear people claim that "No other country that I know of is based on as sophisticated a conception of rights and law as the United States." At first I though the fellow was being sarcastic, but its gradually dawning on me he actually believes it!
>We have to decide whether, even if lots pf people
>guilty of crimes, we want to lock all of the up for
>long times. It is expensive, for one thing.
Well the whole point is that not everyone has to face the full weight of the law. Since police and prosecutors have arbitrary discretion as to who the law will be applied against, the law is merely a smokescreen for a system of arbitrary detention.
You want to go on calling that a free country? Fine, but you aren't kidding anyone but yourselves.
No wonder the Iraqis get nervous when the US threatens to bring freedom to their country...
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas