Washington Post: Justice Department Says It Will End Use Of Private Prisons

[skinsmarydu]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

And health care.

LadySkinsFan said it a few years ago in the Obamacare debate...healthcare for profit is criminal.  I agree.

[Busch1724]

Was going to include that in my reply, but forgot by the time I typed it up. I was multitasking, and guys aren't good at that!

[Gamebreaker]

21 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Honestly not sure how I feel about that yet.  See both sides of it.

 

It has to go away. It's exploitation. Regardless of guilt, plenty of people who are completely innocent are taking guilty pleas and lives are ruined. I can understand a Judge not allowing bail in extreme situations, like a terrorist shooting for example, but whatever the intention was in establishing the current laws has not had the desired result. 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The bail issue is tricky.

The real problem is that we have stretched the definition of "speedy" trial to its breaking point. I doubt many people have a problem with someone at risk of jumping bail from sitting in a cell for maybe a month or so. But we have people waiting two years. At that point, your life is probably beyond repair.

Granted, we are dealing with a population that is probably not spending a lot of time on LinkedIn but imagine explaining a two year gap in a resume with "Oh, I was awaiting trial....."

[Destino]

I think the solution is to bring back the right to a speedy trial, because right now calling it speedy is so inaccurate that it seems sarcastic.  If that means spending more on our own justice system, then we have to do that.  Waiting 2 years for trial is ridiculous.  2 months is ridiculous and I really mean that.  Until guilt is established people should not be spending significant time in prison, defined by the severity of interruption caused to their lives, and it should be against the law to fire anyone that is held pending trial.  (If for no other reason than to put businesses on the side of "hurry the **** up"). 

These massive delays put far too much economic hardship on average people that can least afford it, and serves as even more pressure in favor of the prosecution.  It's an absolute travesty that the so called "leader of the free world" has people in prison for years that haven't been found guilty of anything.  

[Gamebreaker]

On 8/20/2016 at 9:19 AM, tshile said:

Yup. Everything from how you're treated, to odds of conviction, to the severity of your punishment seem to depend greatly on how much money you have.

People often cite the racial disparity, but there seems to be a wealth disparity in outcome in the legal system too.

I've seen the legal people on the board cite the public defenders as some of the better lawyers, they should certainly know better than me, but from where I sit if I'm going to trial it seems the high priced ones have a better track record...

 

From what I understand it, and I'm no more knowledgeable about public defenders than you are, it's the lack of resources that the public defender doesn't get that causes these issues. I recall watching a documentary about a public defender. Can't remember the guy's name, but for defendants that he truly felt were innocent but he was unable to win in court, he would get their names tattooed on his back. He figured carrying their name on his body forever was still much better than what they were going through. 

I recall watching this lawyer know exactly what needed to be done(DNA testing) to prove this one defendant was innocent of the crime he was accused of. But he couldn't get the testing done because there wasn't any funding for his department to pay for it. 

Not to mention expert witnesses who can sway a jury or judge by their credentials won't get on the stand for free. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I honestly don't know much about the system.  My wife told me, and I haven't done any research, that the people waiting 2 years are the slam dunk cases and judges allow them to be pushed that long to make way for cases where someone might actually be innocent.  Now she said she saw that on a documentary so I'm not saying it's true.  But I am asking if anyone here actually has experience with it and can say how long a person normally has to wait, etc.  Is there really a big speedy trial issue or are certain facts/examples being cherry picked?

[BornaSkinsFan83]

I was out on bail for 26 months before sentencing. They tried to screw me over by saying I was a transient since I wasn't technically a California resident. Can't remember the exact terminology but my bail was ridiculous as a result. Only way to get out was to have someone put up their house (on top of the 15% $$$) which thankfully I was able to swing. Had to fire my sandal wearing hippie public defender and the original lawyer I hired to make it happen though. Took a few months.

 

Just ignoring the innocent who are ****ed by the system, the vast majority that this is going to cover aren't going to be impacted by DNA and definitely aren't going to be starring in documentaries. It's going to be people with minor offenses who get released on time served when it's all said and done but aren't going to be compensated for the extra 6-12 months they served and are going to be getting out in an enormous hole.

Related, the goal of our justice system should be making sure people don't commit crimes. And minimizing repeat offenders should be a huge part of that. We are drastically failing on that front.

I understand people don't want to have sympathy for folks who make mistakes (until it happens to their child) but they should at least want a smart, working system. They aren't getting that.

[visionary]