[qntty]

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

> I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today.

[AngryData]

I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh and the best you can hope for is the state merely extorting thousands of dollars out of you and a life-long black mark for employment. Ive had jobs grinding raw castings in 100+ degree environments that full time that paid less than $30K which required background checks.

Unless you got $10K+ to drop on a private lawyer before hand, going to court in the US is a HUGE risk that in most cases is going to cost you many thousands of dollars in court fees and fines regardless with the risk of more jail time and more fees if you can't pay it off on their schedule.

[baubino]

> I don't think you hear it much these days because the punishments are extremely harsh

Civil rights activists, including King, lost their lives for daring to challenge injustice. The penalties are no more severe today than they were then.

[AngryData]

The incarceration rate today is 4x that what it was in MLK's day. And im willing to bet the monetary punishments are similarly increased, if not even higher.

[djeastm]

>The incarceration rate today is 4x that what it was in MLK's day.

What percentage of that is from civil disobedience vs "the war on drugs"?

[roxolotl]

It’s pretty classic civil disobedience. In my mind it’s really the founding principle of the states. There is a difference between what is legal and what is just. For the past 250 years what is just has continually evolved and expanded.

> Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

- Civil Disobedience

[ncr100]

And the "unjust" principle works in the opposite direction, nowadays, for ICE / certain US Federal employees.

Justice is supposedly enabled / supported by the law against second-degree murder. And it's is unlikely to be applied to the ICE officer who shot Renee Good unnecessarily:

- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/17/rene...

[estearum]

ICE is actually routinely breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law. There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech.

A spokesperson for DHS just last week openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal.

[zahlman]

> There are now dozens of videos of them harassing, intimidating, beating, or detaining people for exercising protected speech.

Show me one. I have already seen countless claims of this sort, only to later line them up with video footage that clearly demonstrates that "exercising protected speech" was not the cause of action and that the response was clearly justified.

For example, freedom of speech does not allow one to block traffic for protest purposes, or blocking entrances to buildings, or preventing pedestrians from passing by on the sidewalk (https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_...). And it certainly does not allow violence against ICE officers or other citizens, both of which I've seen a fair bit of.

I have even seen multiple examples of protesters enacting their own Terry stops against people they suspect of being ICE agents.

> openly said that they're allowed to arrest people based on "reasonable suspicion" which is unambiguously illegal.

Show the quote, and show the relevant law.

----

Whoever flagged this comment while it's at +3, please feel free to explain how you think it's in any way counter to HN guidelines.

[ncr100]

Hi @zahlman - we are here to figure stuff out - less to demand answers to rhetorical questions! I'll respond to one of the concerns you share, that Ice 'beating' people for exercising protected speech - (which they are not to judge anyhow, they're Immigration not Police).

Being pushed down, from standing, in the street .. is that illegal for ICE to do .. when no enforcement action is underway?

E.g. protesters standing around, ICE marching forward for no discernable emergent law-enforcement (Law within their remit) reason, and then pushing a protester who's also in the same street-area, knocking them to the ground

Here is the moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epsb6GzudWw (WARNING unwarranted battery)

- @ 12 seconds an ICE agent in camoflage and helmet violently knocks man standing, wearing an orange knit beanie, with a sign. Then the leader of ice .. with the crew cut, walks forward. As if it's a royal procession. This is in the middle of the street, outside their facility, with no ICE vehicles being impeded. Police are nearby.

So, there you go! Looking for your personal determination if that's lawful behavior by ICE.

[zahlman]

> Hi @zahlman - we are here to figure stuff out - less to demand answers to rhetorical questions!

Sorry for the delayed response. I put this aside and then of course more things happened.

I don't know who "we" are, but your questions sound very rhetorical despite this disclaimer.

It comes across that ICE are functionally being expected (because it would otherwise be impossible to do their job) to do double duty as riot police, which is presumably not part of their training.

----

1. Regarding the main question of "determination if that's lawful behaviour".

The most important objection here is that you establish physical force, and you make a case for protected speech, but you do not establish that the force is "for" (i.e., specifically in response to) the exercise of protected speech. The simple fact of making a free-speech statement at the time that you do something else wrong, does not excuse the other wrong. In this case, that wrong is physical obstruction. To the best of my knowledge, nothing happened to the protestor shown in the video at :33 with a subjectively very offensive sign (also reported on in many other sources) — which is as it should be, because that protester didn't cause a similar obstruction. (But I will note that when similar language is used online by right-wingers, it commonly is incorrectly called a "death threat" in an effort to suppress that speech.) You can also see that people who are more to the side, and who don't have the same kind of obstructive body language, are not dealt with as harshly.

I don't think an "enforcement action underway" is required, because the officers are on duty and still clearly have a vested interest in getting from point A to point B (even if point B is just their own facility — the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_Henry_Whipple_Federal_B... if I understood correctly?), and it appears that protesters are physically attempting to prevent that from happening. The knocked-down man has his hands spread out and appears to be walking towards the line (although there is barely any context after the jump-cut to the incident).

You'll also notice that starting at 7:07, the producer of the video goes up and deliberately antagonizes someone with a "Police - Homeland Security" vest on, proposing the theory that the other agents in olive drab might "not have their papers". And nothing happens to him at all, as he exercises his protected free speech in a more or less responsible manner. This follows on from a segment where they're directly asking the agents for their papers (even as someone in the background shouts "You're supposed to be de-escalating!"). And again nothing bad happens.

They have one incident of physical force (shown on two separate occasions) being used in the entire video, which is clearly cut down from a lot more footage, interviewing a crowd full of people holding inflammatory signage; and they have themselves directly approaching officers and talking to them; the only person getting knocked to the ground is the one who clearly did something beyond simply speaking freely.

Conclusion: If the man in the beanie were being pushed "for exercising protected speech", you would expect many other things to have happened in this video that didn't actually happen. If, on the other hand, he is being pushed for physically obstructing officers who are making a show of their right to not be physically obstructed, you would expect to see pretty much what you actually do see. This is not a good way of doing things (the right way is "you're under arrest for obstruction of justice", and physical force only if arrest is resisted), but I don't see a 1A violation. (The video presenters also appear at times to be trying to make something out of the agents exercising their own 1A rights by "filming and laughing". It's also fun watching them interview masked protesters about why they think the agents are masked, but I digress.)

----

2. Regarding other quibbles with your comment.

When you say "they're Immigration not Police" you are factually incorrect (and so are Tim Walz and Jacob Frey, and possibly other Minnesota officials when they make similar arguments). ICE agents qualify as federal LEO; this is extremely well established and any number of readily-searched sources will explain this. They are even explicitly given power of arrest in federal statute (in particular https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357), which in limited circumstances extend as far as arresting US citizens without a warrant.

It doesn't make any sense to refer to the agents' dress as "camouflage". It doesn't have any particular pattern, camouflage of this sort would make no sense in an urban environment, and there is really no question that everyone can clearly see the agents. As you say, "as if it's a royal procession"; they are not in the slightest attempting to hide their presence.

You say "with no ICE vehicles being impeded" as if to imply that there is no obstruction to the officers, but this is not a valid argument. The officers are still physically impeded if they are walking and someone blocks their walking path.

This is the same sort of rhetorical game that was played when NYT asserted that Jonathan Ross was not "run over" by Renee Good, and then others treated the NYT analysis as proof that he was not struck by the vehicle at all.

To be clear, there is abundant evidence that Ross was in fact struck by the SUV. You can see it in the angle NYT is analyzing; they went through frame by frame to make it look as if Ross' feet are planted beside the vehicle at some point, but that's just where they happened to be as he tried to regain his balance. In the footage from behind the SUV you can clearly see him stumble and try to regain balance. This is also consistent with how his own cell phone footage goes way off target slightly before the shoot, because he no longer has the control needed to keep his left hand pointed at the vehicle. And it would be rather difficult to get a bullet hole in the front windshield like the one shown, firing right-handed, if the vehicle had fully cleared him. And while hospital records haven't been released as far as I can determine, there's good evidence that he was indeed checked out at hospital. ("Internal bleeding" technically could describe a bruise, which would be within the sort of puffery expected of the Trump administration.) And then there's the fact that a CNN analyst agreed early on that he was struck, and later they interviewed Good's former father-in-law and he also agreed.

[mothballed]

I've been held ~24 hours by DHS under RAS, it is definitely a thing near the border where they don't need PC to jail you. They put me in jail but I was never under arrest, I later got my federal arrest record and there was nothing. Maybe that was what they were referring to?

Jailing citizens with no warrant nor PC was happening to me under Biden so it's not new either.

[estearum]

Correct you can be detained based on reasonable suspicion. You cannot be arrested on it. The difference might seem subtle, but 1) it's not, and 2) it certainly shouldn't be to actual DHS officials. It's literally in the text of the Constitution.

And yes, near the border has had shaky Constitutional protections for a long time. To suggest it's "not new" to expand that shakiness across the entire nation, eliminate time constraints on it, then scale up the "immigration" enforcement arm 100x is just laughable though. Of course it's new! It's new in scope, scale, and intensity. That makes it new!

[hn_throwaway_99]

What is RAS?

[mothballed]

Reasonable articulable suspicion. In my case, an imaginary dog "alerted" an unnamed handler. So that gave them RAS to strip me naked, be jailed, and be made to poop in front of them to ensure there were no drugs that came out.

Contacted several lawyers, nothing to be done, no chance of fighting it. Girl that tried before me, lost.

[ncr100]

Gross!

Seems like it's worthy of being publicized. Sincerely .. as a point of protest.

E.g. "Do you want your children to be forced to poop in front of grown men, as many times as they want her to, and for there to be No Law Against This? Democracy..use it." Or something better?

Accompanied by a video illustrating a naked person pooping in front of satisfied Federal agents, and then a scene with a lawyer saying, "there's nothing you can do to fight having that done to you, lady."

It feels like USA needs a re-think around concentration of power in the Federal side of our government.

[overfeed]

SCOTUS has deemed Kavanaugh stops to be legal, i.e. you can be stopped on the basis of your apparent ethnicity alone

[zahlman]

Kavanaugh's concurrence (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf) literally says the opposite:

> To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors. Id., at 887.

[jakelazaroff]

Sure, but the intent and effect is to give cops more leeway in using perceived ethnicity as a factor. In the full passage, he explicitly says that given the prevalence in LA of undocumented immigrants from Latin America working in particular jobs, local police are permitted to detain such workers who appear Latine (i.e. to racially profile them).

A fuller quote:

> To stop an individual for brief questioning about immigration status, the Government must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States ... Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and "considerably short" of the preponderance of the evidence standard ... Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances ... Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court's case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a "relevant factor" when considered along with other salient factors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop?wprov=sfti1#Sup...

[THX1137]

Yeah, you would need more than just ethnicity. You can read the Justice's examples directly in the case. Being or looking Mexican on a parking lot may be enough to justify a Kavanaugh stop, but just being Mexican or looking Mexican on it's own is not enough.

[lovich]

Well since I can do all of those things without being stopped due to my race, it appears that being Mexican would be the sole determining reason

[actionfromafar]

"Parking while looking Mexican."

"Looking Mexican in LA."

Mm... I can smell them Freedom Fries.

[estearum]

You can be stopped on reasonable suspicion, which Kavanaugh expanded (and he seems to have immediately realized his name is permanently besmirched).

But they definitely cannot arrest people based on reasonable suspicion. Anyone speaking on behalf of DHS should know the difference.

[zahlman]

Kavanaugh's concurrence does not "expand" reasonable suspicion. It explains that a combination of factors including "apparent race or ethnicity" may cause reasonable suspicion. Which, in fact, as a basic matter of probabilistic reasoning, given the other information in https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf, it might.

And an important part of the decision is that (emphasis his):

> Plaintiffs’ standing theory is especially deficient in this case because immigration officers also use their experience to stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors. So even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop plaintiffs in the future.

and to affirm existing understanding of reasonable suspicion:

> Reasonable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause and “considerably short” of the preponderance of the evidence standard. Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 274. Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 885, n. 10; Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 273. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English. Cf. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 884–885 (listing “[a]ny number of factors” that contribute to reasonable suspicion of illegal presence).

(In other words, he clearly lays out the reasons why such a "combination of factors" may create reasonable suspicion, per precedent.)

As for Kavanaugh "realizing" any such thing, I can't fathom why you think so. This is the same guy who has been very visibly protested by activists of a similar stripe from the beginning.

[estearum]

Sure: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_kkg1....

Footnote on Page 7, written by Kavanaugh mere weeks after the Perdomo decision, says the opposite: "the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity... “[T]he Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race”"

So is race a consideration or is it not? He says here that it's well-established that the Constitution prevents it.

Or did he just throw in that sentence as a complete non-sequitur, unrelated to the immediately preceding sentences?

[shimman]

Why people act surprised that an institution that was literally made to uphold the interests of the elite and is extremely undemocratic continues to act undemocratic?

You have to stop thinking these institutions are worth protecting when they have been the impediment to any progress this country has made.

[pjc50]

The ultimate expression of this is the Presidential pardon, a pass entitling privileged people to one or more free crimes.

[isleyaardvark]

Well the going rate is $1 million for a pardon, so it’s not always free.

[dayvid]

People have too much to lose nowadays. Having a jail or protesting history gives you a black mark if you're middle class and you have to pursue alternate avenues to provide for yourself and your family. It's a last resort and has allowed a lot of insidious things to grow in US gov't and outside

[shipman05]

The men and women who protested with MLK Jr. risked physical harm and death. Many of them paid the ultimate price. So it's hard to argue they didn't have much to lose.

I do take your point, though. Civil disobedience and a digital trail of "undesirable" behavior isn't compatible with a high-earning life in the corporate world.

[pkkim]

Hmmm. When I was in college, I protested and went to jail multiple times in the US, though I was never convicted (the organization I was with provided for legal representation). I don't believe it has ever damaged my career. I'm curious if your experience has been different?

[AngryData]

Well you weren't convicted, and a huge part of that is likely your free legal representation which would otherwise have cost you thousands of dollars that many people don't have to spend themselves.

[pkkim]

Absolutely. If I hadn't been assured there would be a lawyer afterwards (he represented us as a group btw), I wouldn't have done it...

I strongly recommend that anyone doing civil disobedience join up with an organization which can provide training, logistical support, and at least some degree of legal support. The first two are if anything even more important given that these situations tend to be chaotic and tense. The book Waging a Good War documents the intensive training that activists underwent during the civil rights movement which was crucial for their success.

Of course the situation is much more lawless now in places like Minneapolis and ICE is much more undisciplined than the police, which makes civil disobedience much more challenging and dangerous. That just makes training and legal aid all the more necessary.

[hn_throwaway_99]

When were you in college?

[pkkim]

Well within the time period when even minor news was routinely posted to the Internet, so it's searchable. On the other hand I have a really common name.

[pear01]

People have too much to lose nowadays?

Many of King's contemporaries died for this. He was shot and killed. The FBI tried to blackmail him and get him to commit suicide.

I would rather people just admit they are cowards. It is fine, most people are. But saying people have too much to lose nowadays as if this is a contemporary phenomenon is just disingenuous. People always have much to lose, arguably "nowadays" less than ever before.

Maybe the real change is in how things are valued or what society sees as virtues. Perhaps our modern society values wealth more than personal integrity for example. I would suggest though a lot of this is just cope for the fact that people are learning they aren't fit for their heros, they don't belong in the same room let alone the same building. It's easy to valorize King when he's a voice from the past. The people who stay home today are the same who stayed home then. The American revolution was really instigated by a minority of the colonial population. Most people stay home.

It's just a basic fact of humanity - most people are cowards, and that is probably fine. If they weren't society would likely never exist in the first place. What does a polity even look like in a land where everyone is a hero?

[watwut]

The whole bus protest was AGAINST enforcement of the law. It was civil disobedience on the side of Rosa Park and it was all about them not wanting to accept the criminal consequences.

The activists generally did a lot to actually avoid criminal consequences of the time. It was not a suicide pact.

[pear01]

Your logic on the criminal consequences is simply bizarre. It's like you think if I put myself out there protesting a law and subjecting myself to arrest or other consequences by virtue of this opposition I really don't want to accept consequences. What do you think happens to people who protest against the enforcement of a law?

And let's not move the goalposts. I never said it was a suicide pact, nor did anyone else. Reads like more cope. Yes you can tailor your approach, as they did. But ultimately are you staying home or not? Let's take another example, was D Day a suicide pact? Or do you regard them as heroes? Did they not have much to lose?

The fact remains most people stay home. Most people are cowards, unless compelled otherwise. Let's also understand leadership is extremely important. A good leader makes people around them stronger. King made people resolute, and in turn they made him resolute.

Like Eisenhower and the paratroopers before D Day. They made each other feel better. Go read about the visit I'm sure you've seen the famous photograph. The real tragedy of today isn't about cowards, which again have always existed and always will. It's about a vacuum of leadership.

[watwut]

> It's like you think if I put myself out there protesting a law and subjecting myself to arrest or other consequences by virtue of this opposition I really don't want to accept consequences. What do you think happens to people who protest against the enforcement of a law?

In democracies, they are just protesters protected against the retaliation by laws and constitutions. In autocracies and wanna be autocracies, police can abuse them with various levels of impunity.

In fact, people are protesting the law and it enforcement. What they do not do is following this idiotic idea OP was promoting that all protesters should do and promote:

> One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. [...] willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice

No, of course not. No, civil disobedience does not have to imply you will let yourself be abused. That can be occasionally used as tactic, but is absolutely unnecessary for it to be valid.

And it was not even what most protesters in bus protests were doing this all that much. They were trying to avoid the penalty and they were not intentionally giving themselves up to the law.

[pear01]

Sorry but you're just wrong, and shockingly so.

"In democracies, they are just protesters protected against the retaliation by laws and constitutions"

This is a mind numbing statement to make in context. What do you think the civil rights fight was about? You think black people marching around freely in the pre civil rights South were treated as "just protestors"? You realize for a long time the Constitution outrightly failed to protect people who were black, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches#%2...

This is just one example. And sorry, it was part of their philosophy that exposing the country to this brutality would awaken the conscience of the nation. As it eventually did. That meant accepting the police brutality they knew was waiting for them. You are simply wrong, and frankly again, shockingly so.

1. Don't seem to understand the nature of civil disobedience - disobedience being a key word here.

2. Don't seem to understand how engaging in civil disobedience invites severe consequences - especially in the face of an aggressive state. We aren't just talking criminal penalties we are talking risk to life and limb.

3. Don't seem to understand the nature of nonviolence - it wasn't just about not being violent. It was about exposing the barbarity of the state as they attacked nonviolent people not responding even remotely in kind.

4. Don't seem to understand the nature of democracies in reality. Engaging in outright fiction re how democracies treat protestors vs autocracies, as if there is some obvious invisible line. Apparently ignorant of the fact that especially in King's time, protestors rights were often not protected by local authorities in the South.

5. Don't seem to understand that's kind what the entire movement was about, rights for me but not for thee.

I was kind of expecting this response given it was the only logical rejoinder after your previous statements, but it rests on a real misstatement and misunderstanding of the facts that even though was anticipated, is still disappointing.

Democracies can abuse protestors too. Always have, always will. It's why the founders feared the people's temptation for mobs as well as tyrants.

Have a good day

[JKCalhoun]

Really?

Well, when they have nothing left to lose, watch out, I guess.

[OGEnthusiast]

Most of the people today with nothing to lose are just self-medicating on weed, sports betting, Netflix, etc. I don't think there's much to be worried about.

[zer00eyz]

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.

There is another side to this coin: jury nullification.

The fact that, most Americans, are unaware of the concept, or that it is a choice they can make is one of the tragedies of the modern era. Adams had much to say on the topic, and his take is still valid 200 years later.

[massysett]

I think that when you put most Americans in a jury box, they will learn that whether they vote to convict is their choice. Ask the guy who threw the sandwich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Sean_Dunn

[Capricorn2481]

> I always have to go back to read this part again because I feel like it's so unexpected. You don't really hear anyone saying quite the same thing today

The landscape has completely changed. No authority in charge entertains the idea that the law should be respected, it's not surprising citizens reciprocate.

[watwut]

> One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

I would not say this one, because I simply strongly disagree. Simple as that. No, nazi opposition did not needes to let yourself be tortured in camp to be valid. Nor communist one.

As a demand, it is absurd on its face. Yeah, you should weight the level of risk and loss. And you dont need to aim for self harm when opposing something bad.

[verisimi]

> Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application.

When is it just in its application?

[dijit]

More often than not, I would argue.

There's a reason that due process is a thing, it's more commonly upheld than it's not, no matter what rhetoric you've been spun by a fear-mongering media.

[jakelazaroff]

As many as 98% of charges end with plea bargains [1]. That's not "due process" in a meaningful sense of the term.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim...

[dijit]

Yes, it is.

If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse.

Also, included in those "plea bargains" are cautions, for children.

edit; I'm getting flagged but I should definitely mention that I'm intimately familiar with how the law can be for the underclass, I was an underclass and I have a laundry list of a criminal record from when I was a child.

[AngryData]

People plead guilty because they can't afford the $10K in lawyer costs, and if you can't afford a lawyer and get appointed a state one, not only are you far more likely to lose your case, but if you lose you still have to pay that lawyer at the end plus the extra court costs and fees on top.

Often people are given "If you plea, you will pay a few thousand dollars and get to go home. If you don't plea, there is a 50% chance you go to jail, have a black mark on your record, and have to pay $10K in court fees and fines." And when people aren't even sure how they will pay a few thousand dollars, the risk of having to pay $10K+ plus serve jail time that will cost them their job and limit future employment opportunities is a HUGE risk.

[andsoitis]

> People plead guilty because

Or because they’re guilty!

[jakelazaroff]

You are the breadwinner for your household. A detective decides that you are the most likely person to have committed a nearby burglary. You have an alibi, but they charge you anyway. You cannot afford to pay bail; your options are to remain in jail until the case makes its way through the courts, or to accept a plea bargain that lets you out on probation. Your underfunded and overworked public defender advises you to take the deal, since a trial would be ruinous even if you do prevail. What do you do?

The issue with plea bargains is not that guilty people are given leniency for remorse; it is that they are used to coerce innocent people into confessing to a crime they did not commit.

[dijit]

So, back to the thread at hand: to your mind is this more often than when the law is working properly or less?

because it has been claimed in this subthread that the law is applied unjustly nearly 100% of the time.

[JoshTriplett]

> If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse.

On the contrary, I think that's one of the problems that makes plea bargains so egregious: in order to take a plea bargain, you have to plead guilty, which prevents you from further defending yourself if you didn't actually do what you were accused of. That creates the scenario where an innocent person who is not confident in the system's ability to defend them may find themselves having to plead guilty in order to stave off a much worse penalty.

The same thing applies to parole boards: maintaining innocence typically prevents you from being granted parole.

This is a perverse incentive.

[dijit]

You're conflating "plea bargains exist" with "innocent people are systematically coerced into false confessions."

The vast majority of plea bargains involve people who are, in fact, guilty and are receiving a reduced sentence for saving the court's time and showing contrition. That's not a perverse incentive, it's a reasonable tradeoff that benefits both the defendant and society.

Yes, edge cases exist where innocent people feel pressure to plead. But the existence of edge cases doesn't prove the system is fundamentally unjust, it proves the system is imperfect, which no one disputes.

Regarding parole: maintaining innocence after you've been convicted and exhausted your appeals isn't "defending yourself"; at that point, you've had your defence. The parole board's job is to assess rehabilitation, and refusing to acknowledge your crime is evidence you haven't been rehabilitated. If you genuinely didn't do it, your remedy is post-conviction relief, not parole.

The burden is on those claiming systemic injustice to show that false guilty pleas are the norm rather than the exception. "98% plea bargain rate" doesn't demonstrate that.

[wat10000]

Exercising your right to a trial should not be considered “showing no remorse.”

[dijit]

Explain.

If you go to trial you are saying you are not guilty of the offence.

If you are not guilty the ideally you are acquitted.

if you are guilty, you’re hoping to get away with it.

I struggle to see how hoping to get away with it, is showing remorse. If anything I certainly think it says that it shows little or no remorse, since you believe that other people should receive no justice for crimes that you committed against them.

[Dylan16807]

> If you plead guilty to an offence you shouldn't serve the same amount of time as someone who shows no remorse.

Showing remorse is good, yes, but holding that over someone's head as a way to force them to plead guilty is disgusting.

Also pleading guilty does not imply showing remorse.

If we can't disentangle plea and remorse, then factoring remorse into the sentence does more harm than good. It would be better to ignore it entirely and pretend everyone said they're deeply sorry.

[andsoitis]

> As many as 98% of charges end with plea bargains

That’s only a problem if in the majority of cases the person is in fact innocent. Otherwise that stat is red herring.

[array_key_first]

The point is we don't really know who is innocent or not, because the incentives are so fucked. If you're poor and need to get on with your life, you take the guilty plee almost every time. Trial takes fucking forever, and it's very expensive.

What this means is the you can be charged with almost anything, and the odds are very high you will plea guilty, regardless of your innocence. There's basically no incentive for the police or prosecutors to show any restraint, they have a "get out of jail free" card in the form of plea bargains.

[Dylan16807]

What makes you say "majority"?

Let me make up a number. 7%. I think that number of plea bargains would be a huge problem if in 7% of cases the person is in fact innocent. Would you disagree?

And even generally assuming guilt, a number that high gets worrying. Maybe we're only prosecuting the strongest of strong cases or something, but some of the other factors that could be reducing the rate of trials are really bad for justice.

[andsoitis]

What if the answer is 0.01% of cases the innocent person pleads guilty because they’re can’t afford a lawyer?

That seems like a totally different problem to solve than your solution which is get rid of plea bargains.

[propagandist]

https://youtu.be/YKnJL2jfA5A

Kwame Ture talks about what it takes for nonviolence to work.