[fsloth]

Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?

[ithkuil]

> [...] After 414 days in the St Clair County jail, he went home.

and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1].

Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation to deserve this treatment?

[1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...

[toast0]

414 days in jail awaiting trial doesn't sound like a speedy trial to me, as required (but not defined) in the 6th amendment, either.

[drjesusphd]

Defendants are often advised to waive their right to a speedy trial to better prepare a case.

[coldtea]

No. It's probably worse.

E.g. you can get life in prison for 3 "strikes", even if it's for something like stealing cookies. You know, the thing Europe derided back in 19th century with Jean Valjean.

A 15 year old can be sentenced to death (and has).

A man that's later proven innocent can rot in jail for decades without much recourse.

The 5% of the world's population have 25% of the world's prisoners.

...

[tombrossman]

This 'Three Strikes' rule is a real problem in America, removing a judge's ability to exercise discretion and well...judge. Also, the jury may not be informed about it before deliberating.

I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification.

We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.

The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.

[Silhouette]

Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.

Presumably that is why the jury is not told. If the jury's job is to determine, as fairly and impartially as possible, whether someone committed a crime of which they have been accused, then it makes sense to hide other information that does not affect that fact but could cause emotional rather than logical and evidence-based deliberation.

The problem here doesn't seem to be hiding the full situation from you and your colleagues on the jury. The problem seems to be that having fulfilled your purpose in the proceedings by making the determination you were asked to make, and the judge was then denied the ability to fulfill their purpose in the proceedings properly because their hands were tied by the Three Strikes rule and so the punishment arguably did not fit the crime.

Of course, whether the way the jury is kept in the dark in such a case stands up to ethical scrutiny in light of principles like jury nullification is a different question.

[alistairSH]

Between corrupt prosecutors, 3 strike laws, mandatory minimums, and more subtle biases, I would be hard pressed to convict. The news over the last decade or so has convinced me that nullification is the only fair decision for a juror to make.

[tyingq]

There are also lots of local variations that are similar to 3 strikes, but don't get as much attention. Like "enhancing charges" based on prior convictions. Where, for example, shoplifting can be enhanced to a high level felony with a 20 year sentence.

[arethuza]

If he had taken the plea deal would he have avoided life in prison?

[tombrossman]

This happened when I lived in California and it was my understanding that for any potential 'third strike' (any serious crime that could be a felony) a trial was mandatory. No deal could be offered. The judge explained this very briefly and I didn't read up on it to clarify afterwards.

[mirimir]

So why wouldn't defendants blurt out that this would be their third strike? Or would that trigger death penalty?

[thirdsun]

Depending on the defendants' strategy this approach might backfire and isn't useful if you're looking for a not-guilty verdict. "Oh, that guy had a criminal history? 2 strikes already? Yeah, he probably did it."

[mirimir]

Good point.

[aetherson]

Of course it wouldn't "trigger death penalty."

[yungudu]

But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we? And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike. Sounds like a douchebag.

[vidarh]

I'd personally prefer to have a car thief going around, than someone who thinks a minor property crime is sufficient grounds for locking someone up for life going around.

> And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike

At this point one should stop for a moment and ponder why that might be, and not be satisfied until you have an answer.

When society is so broken that someone is willing to risk life in prison over a theft, then to me the problem is the society that left him without better alternatives first and foremost, not the thief.

[tombrossman]

Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony, but I agree that I don't want car thieves locked up for decades as this is unreasonable. The real problem is often drug abuse or mental health issues and those don't get fixed in prison.

I had my car stolen a few years before I got seated on that jury and while it was unpleasant, I got my car back a couple weeks later in perfect condition. The most annoying thing was that the police had it towed to an impound lot and didn't tell me for several days, and I had to pay for the tow and daily impound fees! I explained this during the jury polling and was really surprised to still be seated.

It was a different police force handling my stolen car and I remember thinking that they were total clowns compared to the ones I saw years later as a juror.

[coldtea]

>Stealing a car isn't 'minor property crime' it's a serious felony

"Felony" is a legal term -- and the "seriousness" is related to the laws passed and the culture around them. Heck, it might not even reflect society's opinion of the offense.

Back in the day stealing a car for a ride (equally a "felony" as stealing it permanently) was something "delinquent youth" did routinely, without much harm to anyone -- the practice, common in many countries, is called a "joyride" (nowadays electronic locks make it more difficult -- it was much more prevalent back in the day).

[coldtea]

>But why is he stealing cars? If he's going to go around doing things like that we don't want him in our society do we?

Well, I want him alright. There are tons of examples of people who have done such things, including repeatedly, that include some great artists, writers, inventors, businessmen, etc. And of course tons of people who went to to change their ways, become great parents, etc.

We could lose some people thinking like your statement above from society, though.

[mason240]

We have plenty of people in society that we don't need to keep car thieves on the street stealing cars.

[isleyaardvark]

Instead we'll pay to keep them imprisoned for 40-50 years for stealing one car. We should spend that money for incarceration because the cost of one car is too great. You think that is a wise choice?

[mcphage]

> we don't need to keep car thieves on the street stealing cars

Sure, but we'd probably be better off finding something better than jail as well.

[coldtea]

I'd rather get rid of the bankers and advertisers (for starters) and keep the car thieves.

Actually, I'd rather we get rid of the cars...

[pjc50]

Racism and wildly exaggerated fear of crime caused people to effectively demand a justice system that worked like this. So long as it only ruins black lives and those of white people who are easy to dismiss as feckless, the rest of the voters are happy with it.

[talmand]

You're not going back far enough. I would say that throughout much of history there has been similar problems with all justice systems.

[pjc50]

Policing in the modern sense only dates back to 1829. "Much of history" covers a huge sweep of possibilities.

[talmand]

I'm not talking about policing, I'm speaking of justice systems which do go back quite a ways into history.

[bitJericho]

Yes. In my experience often the people have no ulterior motive though. They just suck, a lot.

[specialist]

Article acknowledges the power of local prosecutors, but not the perverse incentives and lack of counterweights leading to high conviction rates.

[Nutmog]

If it wasn't the US, it would be classified as a human rights violation. This is worse than imprisoning or torturing political prisoners because of the scale of it. At least political prisoners knew they were breaking the law. They're also usually fewer in number except during revolutions/etc.

[xlm1717]

Not just the justice system, but society in general. If you're arbitrarily targeted by the internet outrage mob for doing or saying something they don't like, your life can be ruined without a fair due process, and the internet does not forgive even if you're innocent.

[mason240]

No, it's a moral panic.