The Corrupt State And Federal "Justice" Systems And A Presidential Panel That Did Nothing To Change Them
TheFIRE.org founder Harvey Silverglate writes at WGBH about a panel on criminal justice reform, filmed at the White House -- one that failed to discuss the real reforms needed:
Our state and federal justice systems over-incarcerate by a huge margin, and it is one of America's greatest shames that we have the largest prison population in the world. But all of the reforms discussed by President Obama, Colorado United States Attorney John Walsh, and Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck belie a central scandal: a vast number of defendants are prosecuted for either (1) engaging in conduct that should not be criminalized at all, or for (2) acts that they did not commit but which a rewarded witness fingered them for. Nor did the discussion take into account (3) the thousands of people serving sentences for violations of criminal statutes so vague that no person of ordinary or even elevated intelligence - including many lawyers and judges - would instinctively consider crimes.These structural defects of the criminal justice system will continue to result in over-incarceration of our innocent fellow citizens, even if all of the reforms discussed at Keller's White House extravaganza come to pass. The reforms mentioned at the panel - the reduction of long sentences, the targeting of only the "worst-of-the-worst," an increase in federal community policing grants - will only put a dent in the problem.
The panel only briefly touched upon the toxic plea bargaining culture that has developed throughout the country. U. S. Attorney Walsh proposed that mandatory-minimum sentences be reserved only for the most violent offenders. But he failed to mention a practice that goes hand-in-hand with these sentences: government cooperation in exchange for lower sentences. Endowed with the immense power of imposing long prison sentences, a prosecutor can single-handedly get a defendant to say almost anything about almost anybody. Such witnesses, as the saying goes, will "not only sing, but compose." Many an innocent defendant has gone to prison for decades based on such bought testimony of dubious accuracy.
The White House discussion also failed to address the kinds of crimes such as "conspiracy," violation of "national security," or "fraud" - that are not defined with sufficient clarity so that a typical citizen can discern what conduct is allowed and what is prohibited. There is an ancient precept of the English common law that a person not be designated a criminal unless he intentionally and knowingly violates a clear legal requirement. Too many people are prosecuted today, mostly in the federal courts, who have no idea that they violated some obscure or vague statute buried in the federal criminal code. (I wrote a whole book on the subject, my 2007 volume entitled Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. My thesis was that the typical American arguably commits three federal felonies a day without even knowing it. I guess the President never got around to reading my book.)
Once during the discussion U.S. Attorney Walsh complimented the President on his vast command of the issues in this sprawling area of law and life. Chief Beck reiterated the compliment. But in reality, none of the panelists, nor the host of the panel for that matter, really appeared to understand the deeper ills of our state and federal criminal justice systems. Perhaps this was due to the panel's utter and obvious lack of a member of Washington D.C.'s Public Defenders office, or an ACLU attorney, or Washington Post columnist Radley Balko, who covers these issues in detail week after week. Without these sorts of panelists, this "conversation" on criminal justice was rendered completely asymmetrical and incomplete from the outset.
We not only incarcerate too many defendants for too-long periods, but we convict and incarcerate a vast and largely unknown number of individuals who are in fact innocent of crime properly understood. The system is broken, yes, but in many more ways than we heard about today.
Silverglate's book on the subject: Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.








One thing he only touches on, that has been of interest to me lately, is the tear-down of the English common law standards for what constitutes proof "beyond a reasonable doubt". Silvergate mentions the discarding of the principle of mens rea, the prosecution being required to demonstrate that the defendent knew or should have known that they were committing a crime, and acted with intent. Amy wrote the other day about the way that traffic courts typically work, where all evidence presented by the prosecution is considered prima facie, and no defense is possible. Plus, the defendant cannot demand that justice be administered swiftly, even though the Constitution guarantees that right. There's also the "CSI" business where evidence presented by police labs is nearly impossible to refute, even though we're starting to find out that these crime labs have a whole lot of problems and have probably sent a lot of innocent people to jail. (I saw an article about that last week and had meant to post a link to it. If I find it again, I will post it.)
Cousin Dave at November 3, 2015 7:55 AM
I meant to mention this too: Heather Macdonald had an article in (I think it was) Reason last week in which she claimed that the number of people who are imprisoned solely on drug charges is a lot less than people think. I just skimmed the article and I need to go back and look at her data. I conjecture that some of the apparent difference is accounted for by people imprisoned for drug "trafficking", which often gets classified as a violent felony. The problem with that is that the definition of "trafficking" keeps getting racheted down; for instance, in Alabama you can get charged with trafficking if you have 2 ounces of pot on you. Of course, 2 ounces isn't all that much, and even if you sell it you aren't going to make thousands of dollars off of it. Plus, the government often finds reasons to lump in other charges with trafficking, e.g., if you are charged with trafficking and you had a gun on you at the time, that's another felony, even if you had a legal permit for the gun.
The Universal Code of Military Justice prohibits piling on of charges. As an example, the case against Bradley Manning constitues only two charges.
Cousin Dave at November 3, 2015 8:04 AM
I saw an article/interview awhile back with a state prison head honcho (I think Washington state or Colorado) about how he thought things would change and how many people could possibly be let out because of the law change. He said that they had let go anyone they could justify and he was pretty sure that nobody was still in state prison for just possession -- may be one of the real hard drugs -- probably very in county either for more than a night or two. Even dealing probably would only get a bit of type in county and likely only if you were traffic a lot or some of the harder drugs. Usually what got people really in prison - especially the state prisons - was the other things...the guns, selling of stolen property -- the drug charge is just added on. So he figured nothing much would change.
The Former Banker at November 3, 2015 6:27 PM
another issue is the private prison systems of companies like Securitas, who incarcerate thousands of prisoners AT A PROFIT for the company because it costs them like $15 a day to hold them while being paid hundreds per day per prisoner.
warhawke223 at November 4, 2015 12:46 AM
Leave a comment