>>The US system is especially repulsive due to the fact that the
>>professional ethics of prosecutors seem to allow them to charge
>>people with crimes more serious than they actually believe they are
>>guilty of, as a form of leverage to coerce guilty pleas to less
>>serious charges. BB
>
>As I said it has good effects and bad. I don't know of a way to get
>rid of the bad and keep the good. It is an imperfect system, just
>like exists everywhere. I don't know that that the US system is more
>repulsive than say the Australian or Japanese system.
I gather the Japanese system is even more repulsive. As a matter of fact the Australian system is less disagreeable, you'll be surprised to learn that many people charged with serious crimes like murder actually get a trial.
> I'm certain I could find terrible cases of injustice in every
>country. I do think the US system has serious problems but until
>cultural attitudes change the system is, to my mind, a reflection of
>the dominant cultures desires. JT
>
>>This is a monstrous practice, but the root of the problem lies in
>>permitting prosecutors to have any say in sentencing, through
>>secret back-room deals. Just on principle, it is taking the
>>adversarial legal system too far when the two can haggle over
>>choice of crime and sentencing. This is, to my mind, corrupt. No
>>doubt it also has the effect of many crimes going unpunished, as
>>well as many innocent people being coerced to plead guilty,
>>depending on the amount of "justice" an accused person can afford.
>>BB
>
>"Many innocent people being coerced to plead guilty" seems like an
>inaccurate way to word this.
I am using to the old-fashioned definition by "innocent people", which is to say people innocent of the actual crime they are charged with. Rather than the definition favoured by defenders of the American legal system, which appears to reserve the term "innocent" only for people who are innocent of any crime at all. Of course there are exceedingly few of us who can truly claim to be innocent according to your definition. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone then...
> More like impoverished people given unfair choices that wealthy
>individuals are not subject to. The chances of an innocent person
>being charged is pretty remote,
Obviously. But as I say, I am using the more conventional definition of "innocent person".
> but the more criminal behavior you define as such and the more
>prosecutions you follow through with the greater the likely hood
>that this will happen becomes. However most people commit multiple
>offenses before they are ever prosecuted for even one offense.
So it doesn't matter if the offense they are prosecuted for is one they aren't actually guilty of? They probably did something sometime. Something of a hit or miss approach to law enforcement I would suggest, in fact it is pretty much the justification that bent cops use to justify framing people. basically it is a corrupt argument that only a person who had no notion of justice would contemplate using.
> Selective enforcement seems like a bigger issue in my mind
A bigger issue than the inconsequential quibble about framing people for crimes they haven't committed? I don't think so. For one thing, if a person who didn't commit the crime is prosecuted and maybe found guilty, then this tends to leave a guilty person free and clear to commit other crimes. This is a problem.
But then, by your logic, the guilty party is probably innocent of SOMETHING, so even though he probably was guilty of this particular crime, he deserves to be cleared because of this inherent innocence? Is that how you justify it? It seems entirely consistent with your logic that someone who didn't commit the crime deserves to be punished for it on account of being guilty of something else. Which is to say it is a pathetic and immoral justification of systematic injustice.
> and that happens everywhere but admittedly is a big problem here.
>The idea that prosecutors have complete say in sentencing is
>incorrect. They have a lot of latitude in what they can charge
>someone with but can't just make up any charge they wish. It isn't
>possible for a prosecutor to have no knowledge of potential
>sentencing when deciding what to charge someone with. That is true
>everywhere. How would it be possible for a prosecutor to have no
>idea what penalties exist for different crimes? It is the selective
>enforcement issue that still seems to be the larger problem, but I'm
>not a lawyer so I have to take my cues from the lawyers that I know
>who are decent people and whose values I generally agree with. No
>one can be fully informed on everything. JT
No, you don't have to take your cues from lawyers. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and justice isn't rocket science. Anyone can grasp the basic principles. Yes, selective enforcement is always a problem, but prosecutors having discretion about which cases to prosecute isn't the basic problem. The real problem comes when this is the only safety net in the system, such as for instance under mandatory sentencing regimes where the decision to prosecute or not ultimately determines the penalty.
The legal fraternity in Australia has fought to keep these various American perversions of the legal system out of this country and its a real battle. They are up against the pervasive influence of American news and entertainment culture in this country.
>Since many US citizens wrongly believe their country has the best of
>everything, legal system included, why would they want to spend more
>money improving it? Until you can begin to convince masses of people
>of the unfairness of a system you don't have much chance for change.
Given that I have somewhat limited opportunities to talk to masses of Americans, I'll start with the people here. Especially those who ought to know better than to argue that the American legals system is legitimate. Or who dare to argue that it is fine to punish people for crimes they didn't commit, because they are probably guilty of something else that they haven't been caught for. I really don't know how to deal with people so ignorant as to believe that this is the best of all existing, let alone possible, legal doctrines, except to abuse them.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas