http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html?

src=me&ref=general#commentsContainer Opinion

Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System

Photo - Edward Keating/The New York Times More than 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried before a jury. By MICHELLE ALEXANDER Published: March 10, 2012 * Read All Comments (128) AFTER years as a civil rights lawyer, I rarely find myself speechless. But some questions a woman I know posed during a phone conversation one recent evening gave me pause: What would happen if we organized thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people charged with crimes to refuse to play the game, to refuse to plea out? What if they all insisted on their Sixth Amendment right to trial? Couldnt we bring the whole system to a halt just like that? The woman was Susan Burton, who knows a lot about being processed through the criminal justice system. Her odyssey began when a Los Angeles police cruiser ran over and killed her 5-year-old son. Consumed with grief and without access to therapy or antidepressant medications, Susan became addicted to crack cocaine. She lived in an impoverished black community under siege in the war on drugs, and it was but a matter of time before she was arrested and offered the first of many plea deals that left her behind bars for a series of drug-related offenses. Every time she was released, she found herself trapped in an under-caste, subject to legal discrimination in employment and housing. Fifteen years after her first arrest, Susan was finally admitted to a private drug treatment facility and given a job. After she was clean she dedicated her life to making sure no other woman would suffer what she had been through. Susan now runs five safe homes for formerly incarcerated women in Los Angeles. Her organization, A New Way of Life, supplies a lifeline for women released from prison. But it does much more: it is also helping to start a movement. With groups like All of Us or None, it is organizing formerly incarcerated people and encouraging them to demand restoration of their basic civil and human rights. I was stunned by Susans question about plea bargains because she of all people knows the risks involved in forcing prosecutors to make cases against people who have been charged with crimes. Could she be serious about organizing people, on a large scale, to refuse to plea-bargain when charged with a crime? Yes, Im serious, she flatly replied. I launched, predictably, into a lecture about what prosecutors would do to people if they actually tried to stand up for their rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees the accused basic safeguards, including the right to be informed of charges against them, to an impartial, fair and speedy jury trial, to cross-examine witnesses and to the assistance of counsel. But in this era of mass incarceration when our nations prison population has quintupled in a few decades partly as a result of the war on drugs and the get tough movement these rights are, for the overwhelming majority of people hauled into courtrooms across America, theoretical. More than 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried before a jury. Most people charged with crimes forfeit their constitutional rights and plead guilty. The truth is that government officials have deliberately engineered the system to assure that the jury trial system established by the Constitution is seldom used, said Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the libertarian Cato Institute. In other words: the system is rigged. In the race to incarcerate, politicians champion stiff sentences for nearly all crimes, including harsh mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws; the result is a dramatic power shift, from judges to prosecutors. The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that threatening someone with life imprisonment for a minor crime in an effort to induce him to forfeit a jury trial did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to trial. Thirteen years later, in Harmelin v. Michigan, the court ruled that life imprisonment for a first-time drug offense did not violate the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and unusual punishment. No wonder, then, that most people waive their rights. Take the case of Erma Faye Stewart, a single African-American mother of two who was arrested at age 30 in a drug sweep in Hearne, Tex., in 2000. In jail, with no one to care for her two young children, she began to panic. Though she maintained her innocence, her court-appointed lawyer told her to plead guilty, since the prosecutor offered probation. Ms. Stewart spent a month in jail, and then relented to a plea. She was sentenced to 10 years probation and ordered to pay a $1,000 fine. Then her real punishment began: upon her release, Ms. Stewart was saddled with a felony record; she was destitute, barred from food stamps and evicted from public housing. Once they were homeless, Ms. Stewarts children were taken away and placed in foster care. In the

end, she lost everything even though she took the deal. On the phone, Susan said she knew exactly what was involved in asking people who have been charged with crimes to reject plea bargains, and press for trial. Believe me, I know. Im asking what we can do. Can we crash the system just by exercising our rights? The answer is yes. The system of mass incarceration depends almost entirely on the cooperation of those it seeks to control. If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation. Not everyone would have to join for the revolt to have an impact; as the legal scholar Angela J. Davis noted, if the number of people exercising their trial rights suddenly doubled or tripled in some jurisdictions, it would create chaos. Such chaos would force mass incarceration to the top of the agenda for politicians and policy makers, leaving them only two viable options: sharply scale back the number of criminal cases filed (for drug possession, for example) or amend the Constitution (or eviscerate it by judicial emergency fiat). Either action would create a crisis and the system would crash it could no longer function as it had before. Mass protest would force a public conversation that, to date, we have been content to avoid. In telling Susan that she was right, I found myself uneasy. As a mother myself, I dont think theres anything I wouldnt plead guilty to if a prosecutor told me that accepting a plea was the only way to get home to my children, I said. I truly cant imagine risking life imprisonment, so how can I urge others to take that risk even if it would send shock waves through a fundamentally immoral and unjust system? Susan, silent for a while, replied: Im not saying we should do it. Im saying we ought to know that its an option. People should understand that simply exercising their rights would shake the foundations of our justice system which works only so long as we accept its terms. As you know, another brutal system of racial and social control once prevailed in this country, and it never would have ended if some people werent willing to risk their lives. It would be nice if reasoned argument would do, but as weve seen thats just not the case. So maybe, just maybe, if we truly want to end this system, some of us will have to risk our lives. Michelle Alexander is the author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 11, 2012, on page SR5 of the New York edition with the headline: Go to Trial: Crash the Justice System. 128 Comments Comments Closed 1. * KCG * Catskill, NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Occupy the courts! * March 12, 2012 at 2:50 p.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 2. * Marge * NYC Report Inappropriate Comment *

Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Yeah, let's crash the system so that no justice is done. Yeah, great. Look, I agree that drugs laws are ridiculous, but how are you going to explain the lack of a courtroom or prosecutorial resources to properly try a case to the victim, or worse, to their families? There are violent criminals out there, not just crack users, and they're generally not innocent. I know. I've met many of them. I've seen the evidence, including the evidence that does not get to the jury (and should not) but reflects guilt beyond any doubt. We need legal reform, not childish solutions like this, where no one really wins. * March 12, 2012 at 6:23 a.m. * Recommend13 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 3. * xprintman * Denver, Colorado Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The system of "justice" we have is wildly tilted toward the state with prosecutor's offices better staffed with skilled litigators than the Public Defender's, with the entire police force serving only the prosecutor, with the practice of charging the suspect with every imaginable crime flowing from the alleged act to coerce a plea bargain, with the practice to parading the accused before the cameras to shape public opinion, and the trial happening before a statepaid judge in a building paid for by the state rather than at a neutral site. Demanding a full hearing at every step, to have the charges read in full, and not waiving a speedy trial would bring the system to its knees. Beyond that the suspect can refuse to cooperate in any manner, not to answer the judge's questions, refuse to cooperate with any court appointed lawyer, or take any part in his defense would pose problems that would clobber the system - and not win the love of any judges or politicians. Never mind, forget I said anything. * March 12, 2012 at 5:25 a.m. * Recommend9 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 4. * Darwin * New York, NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar

* Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Incarceration rates in the USA are a disgrace and an obvious indictment of the failure of our society at so many levels, not too dissimilar (and probably casually related) to the failure of our urban public education system. When 3040 percent of our inner city students can't graduate a high school system that is already terribly unrigorous, schools have become incarceration factories. Even if the crimes are minor (even trivial) once you've been in jail our society has no effective way of incorporating you back - no way to break this self-perpetuating cycle. The racial and socieconomic overtones of this devastating biased joke of a judicial system only makes it more appalling. Crash it I say. Its the only way this society will wake up from this systemically unjust and destructive system. This is one of the fundamental civil right issue of our generation - we need nothing short of a strategic assault. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend30 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 5. * martin braun * meloop Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag No one who has not been in a courtroom and watched and listened as these deals are made, knows anything about the terrible fear and tragedy that can follow if the wrong decision is handed down. Most plea bargains are made not over 20 year sentences, or to free mass murderers. Most are to get otherwise functional people back to work. Only in felonies, and not in all of them, does the system often break down. Also, where is there mention in this article of the fact that each state runs it's own system of criminal prosecutions? What is a horror in Texas may be a perfect and only solution in NY. Don't knock it 'till you've seen people desperate to get out from under the court systems. The real enemy is vicious prosecutors, cruel and thoughtless judges, guard unions and mean cops with an arrest quota, high bail, dumb legislators and dumber probation and parole systems. But non lawyers or non offenders never seem to understand the realities thatimpinge upon individuals, not whole populations. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend19 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 6. * pspiegel * San Francisco, CA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar *

Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag As presently administered, the criminal justice system simply cannot work if everyone insists on their rights. Like the banking system, it's built on leverage. A run on the courts would be as disastrous as a run on the banks. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend8 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 7. * Will * United States Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag As a libertarian, I am particularly troubled by plea bargaining as it exists because, quite frankly, it is tantamount to coercion. To be clear, I do not mean to imply that plea bargaining is necessarily coercive. However, given the current sentencing disparities involved in plea bargaining, one should be troubled by its use. The problem with this is that if it is coercive, then there no longer exists the primary motivation for the practice, namely, giving the person greater say over their future. To have such a say, one would think that one must be free to choose to plea bargain, a requirement that is undermined by the presence of coercion. And to be clear, merely having the option of not plea bargaining is not sufficient to say the practice is not coercive. To give an example, imagine someone pulls a gun on you and demands 'your money or your life.' Clearly, you can choose to keep your money (albeit at an extremely high cost), but no one would consider that sufficient for concluding that you had consented to handing over your cash. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 8. * PL * Orange County, CA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam *

Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag This is the classic prisoner's dilemma. An n-dimensional. If everyone accused of a crime cooperated with each other and insisted on trials, the current system would break down and trials couldn't go forward for most, but in each individual case, the choice of accepting a plea is better than cooperating. Which is exactly why we are where we are; we didn't arrive at the present situation by accident. The spectacle of an angry public response and long sentences handed down would not escape the notice of the accused. The legal system to adapt and civil liberties related to jury trials would be further degraded in the process. But maybe it would force our culture to finally confront and change the way we treat drugs. Drugs are a public health problem, like alcohol, and should be treated as such. If we took that approach, and we only prosecuted bad behavior by people who take drugs, which is the way we treat drunks, our current appalling rate of incarceration would be dramatically reduced. We could actually spend money on public health reductions in drug abuse. Heck, we might even be able, by education and human infrastructure, to improve the lives and hopes of folks who currently have nothing but drugs and alcohol to stave off despair. We need to face the fact that the only people served by the current system are those who build and maintain prisons. What kind of a culture is that? * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend30 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 9. * Jude * Minneapolis Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Not surprisingly, The Faith's, AJ's, and bayboats's of the world presume guilt before innocence, they believe those who are merely accused of a criminal act (particularly drug-related offenses) are de facto guilty because "we all know what kind of people" are accused of such "crimes," and, finally, they're not bothered by the fact that the majority of those incarcerated in this country are minorities for alleged offenses that have zero impact on their so-called lawabiding lives. But, these same people are perfectly content with wealthy bankers and others in the financial industry going scot-free and becoming even wealthier as a result of their offenses, actions that have profoundly affected virtually every single human being on this planet for the worse. Consequently, it's also not surprising that they missed the entire point of this article. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend17 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 10. * DK * Colorado Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar *

Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag My 18 year old son was arrested on drug (marijuana) possession charges (with the charges-one a felony!- finally determined by the ADA after 2 uncompleted "arraignments") in a liberal jurisdiction, with Medical Marijuana legal in our state (he was waiting for his official card at the time of his arrest). His University legal counsel advised taking the plea deal offered by the ADA. Nonsense I said; we will fight this; this is totally unreasonable. Little did I know how little I knew about what is reasonable in our legal system. After numerous court dates, court mandated ongoing random drug testing (though he could have marijuana in his system due to his MM card-go figure), court mandated substance abuse counseling-all of this before any trial, finally, almost 10 months later, all the charges were dismissed shortly before his scheduled trial date. What a travesty. And to top it off, in order to have his arrest record expunged, he/we must fork over another couple hundred dollars or so to the court for that privilege. Wow. But it was worth it. It could have ruined many future prospects if he had taken the plea. Fortunately, we had the resources to do this but so very many of those found in similar situations do not. I am not sure that what we have is a "justice system" so much as an extortion racket. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend65 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 11. * Maurizio * Minneapolis, MN Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag James Mills" 1975 novel "One Just Man" takes this premise to its logical conclusion. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 12. * Steve Singer * Chicago Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic

Submit Cancel Flag As a famous poster warned during The Sixties: "Amerika is devouring its children". * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 13. * Steven Woodruff * Los Angeles, California Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Overfilled prisons,whether here in the US or in third world countries like Honduras are more of a testament to a malfunctioning society than a legal system keeping us safe.Offering pleas is a way for the legal system to cut its losses and not bother with the work it takes to jail someone. If the case is not worth a trial then it should also not be worth a prison sentence. Perhaps the plea arrangement should direct the offender in the direction of court ordered rehabilitation of whatever description. The the trial option can then be reserved for those that seriously threaten our society. * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. * Recommend8 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 14. * Winemaster2 * GA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The name of the game is that, it is not the law that controls how the law is applied and rights of the accused, but rather those that hold the power that is the Judges, the prosecutors and 90 % of the time the appointed attorney's, who all bond together to carry on as they please. They all make a living off the system. Over 90% of the time with the cooperation the defense council, defendants rights for formal arraignment and speedy trial are waved. There after it is the Judge who control as to what if anything will be done. The defendants who are granted bail are put on a monthly calendar to appear for role call for one reason or another. Usually this a whole day process unless of course the attorney is connected. Nothing is done for the convenience of the accused. The whole system of jurisprudence is structured for the convenience of the system the judge, where Judicial abuse is

common. If every body elect for a trial, the judges will just back up everything, complain for need of more judges, who will be attorneys, or lower court Judges, old retired geezer , so called senior judges who all run rough shod, assemble red neck juries or some such cohorts start railroading people through the system. These days in the eyes of people that include the jury in most case the accused has to prove his or her innocence rather then the prosecutor to prove the guilt without a reasonable doubt. And then when the person gets wrongfully convicted the judges throw * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 15. * Raj S * Westborough, MA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Promotions to State Prosecutors are based on Victories. State Prosecutors think they are in a Competitive Battle and use a wide array of emotional and psychological tactics to coerce people to either accept a plea bargain or get ready for a lifetime behind the bars. The only solution for this is to sensitize the State Judicial System to the impact of an entire lifetime of misery on the potential suspect. The very basic ethics , morals and the goodness of humane qualities of State Judiciary staff should be protected from degenerating in the banal urge for a glorious career and a fat pension. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 16. * NJ * New Jersey Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The author's article and her book are eye-opening. In addition to classifying the system as 'rigged', the words seriously flawed, unjust, unethical, and un-American come to mind. The data for rates of incarceration among demographic groups speak the truth of what is happening. For example, a young black male walking down a street in the U.S. has a higher risk of being stopped, detained, and even arrested than he would in any other country on this planet. It's a silent mass incarceration that now has caught the eye of for-profit prison corporations. They could offer

inmate labor at below minimum wage rates to fix our country's infrastructure using imprisoned labor; and donate millions of dollars to political campaigns that promise to stiffen prison sentences for minor crimes in order to increase the size of their workforce. Crime has no place in society, but basic fairness and human rights do. We need to reset our compass. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend17 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 17. * willtyler * Okemos Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Treating medical addiction as a crime is itself a crime and unconstitutional. Until the legal system and American public demands treatment instead of incarceration, our prisons and society will be crowded with those destroyed by the illegal "war on drugs", which is much more destructive than the drugs themselves. The longest, most costly war in U.S. History - against its own citizens - continues to destroy our country and others like Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, etc. This "war" was lost as soon as it was declared. Was nothing learned from the failure of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's, largely responsible for creating organized crime in this country? Apparently, gang violence and enrichment of criminals is an acceptable tradeoff for those who think government should control what people choose to put in their own bodies. Stupidity and self-destructive behavior are not crimes, although in many states attempted suicide is prosecuted as a crime against the state, as your body is state property. That's why a crime against oneself like drug addiction results in jail time. Naturally inherent human behavior cannot be controlled by simply enacting laws against it. It does create a lot of employment though for the law enforcement, legal & penal system. And the chance for politicians to grand stand about being "tough on crime". Almost every time that phrase is used though, it more accurately refers to being "tough on minorities with serious medical problems". * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend11 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 18. * funnydog * Savannah, GA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel

Flag Look at what other countries do to their people who can rot in jails for years or worse - and thank God at least one has "options" in this country - as cruel and unusual as they appear. In Russia you can be hauled off to prison forever or worse - for certain so called " criminal acts". * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 19. * Tom Wolpert * West Chester PA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Alexander presents a pair of anectodal injustices, which are really a critique of our drug laws. Her solution would crash the system designed to protect us from people who are rightly charged with murder, big time drug dealing which is invariably coupled with guns and violence, rape, armed robbery, spousal abuse and domestic violence, child molesters, child pornographers, arsonists, people engaged in hate crimes, terrorists plotting crimes against our cities or against places where Jews gather, people engaged in systematic fraud and white collar and corporate crime, etc. all sorts of people who are often excoriated by the 'bleeding heart left' and who demand that the penalties for such crimes be increased. Does she really want to crash the system that incarcerated Bernie Madoff? Or is she just mad because our current drug laws, when applied to young women who are the mothers of young children, don't make a lot of sense in application? Tom Wolpert, Esq. Royersford PA * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 20. * Scott * Northern Virginia Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The comments about most of these defendants being guilty of something anyway are beside the point even if largely accurate, which I'm not sure I concede. After all, the careers of police are driven by making arrests that stick and of prosecutors by winning cases either at trial or plea, providing incentives that we know have resulted in many

being behind bars or even executed for homicides they did not commit; how much easier for somebody to go away for a lesser offense, pled out, even though there wasn't enough evidence to reliably win conviction at trial? But regardless, the right to a jury trial isn't just for the objectively innocent, and there's a point that many sentences are out of proportion to their offenses to incentivize plea bargains. However, if a movement such as this one were ever to come to fruition, I would hope those involved would include not only criminal defendants and public defenders, but also a large contingent of criminal lawyers in private practice equally disgusted with the current situation and willing to provide a huge amount of pro bono defense work. Perhaps somebody who works in that world could chime in as to whether functionally speaking there are enough criminal defense attorneys with both the heart and the means to sign on to such a cause, but without them, I could see such a movement fizzling as the first participants just find themselves with longer jail terms and others start having doubts about the wisdom of this course of action. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 21. * TJ Colatrella * Boiceville NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Why do you think they call it The "Criminal" Justice System..? Private Prisons, Prisons for Profit are the very definition of Fascism.. Plea bargains are often for the innocent, not the guilty and our Prosecutors think only of Conviction Rates, not the Truth or facts of a case, or Justice for that matter... * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend6 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 22. * Concerned Citizen * Boston Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Michelle Alexander points out that we, the people, have allowed the Constitution to be invalidated, and several

commenters here exemplify how and why. Apparently, we believe that the fact that the overwhelming majority of prisoners is black or brown indicates that the vast majority of crimes is committed by black and brown people - the "guilty" whom we are happy to see locked away. As Ms. Alexander points out in her brilliant book, and as any alert reader of the news knows, the rates particularly of drug offenses are similar among the white and black population. If our criminal system were to lock away guilty people in proportion to their crimes, the majority of people in prison would be white. Yet we want to believe that black men are behind bars because they are guilty, and whites are not because they are innocent. I hope that we, the people, including the white majority, can face the truth. Until we do, we will continue burdening our country with rates of imprisonment comparable only to the most brutal dictatorships in the world, and lose millions of talented youth who could be our future physicians, mechanics and violinists to the prison pipeline. Michelle Alexander's book is a must read for anyone who cares about the future of this country. It could be great, if we were to conclude that "all people are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend9 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 23. * LE * West Bloomfield, MI Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The solution is to "diversify" the criminal justice system. My experience has been that where there are more African American prosecutors and Judges there is more discretion. But let's resist the usual urge to blame criminality on every factor but people's conduct. It sounds simple and maybe trite - but the best way to avoid the criminal justice system is to not engage in criminal conduct. Period. Most people plead guilty because they are guilty. The implied message of the article is that there should be more sentencing and charging discretion and flexibility. But supposedly going to trial is not the solution because most plea deals offer much less in terms of a reduction in the charge and hence a lesser sentence. At Voir Dire during a plea the Judge will ask "Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?" Followed by a request for the Defendant to state on the record in their own words what conduct was engaged in that made them agree that they were guilty. Believing that your criminal conduct merits a break is entirely different than believing that the conduct was not criminal. If it's the latter, ALWAYS choose to go to trial. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 24. * Jeff * Cali Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack

* Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The reality is that the overwhelming majority of those arrested are guilty. Most of them do not have the funds to pay a private attorney. There are a limited number of public defenders. The "system" has limited resources, ideally reserved for the cases where gulit is disputed by evidence, or lack of it. If people wanted to go to trial, they stand a very good chance of being convicted, due to the legal thresholds that they have reached to be charged in the first place, i.e, probale cause declaration by police, and the preliminary hearing. The trade-off is that if you want to fight your charge, you risk a jury or judge convicting you and giving you the maximum sentence-----rather than a plea to the charge and receiving leniency. That's the way the system works. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 25. * Lary Waldman * Qualicum Beach British Columbia Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Although there is rot in all the legs of the three legged stool that serves as a foundation for America, one could argue that the Justice system, being a power onto itself, may be the most rotten leg of the stool. It has been said that the most prosperous Union in one of Americas biggest State is the Prison Guard Union. To feed their demands for work you must build more prisons and then provide tenants to fill there cells. It all smells funny to me, as do dozens of other settelments in current process as well as the overwhelming order from the Supreme Court. Money is speech, and corporations are people. With all due respect, give me a break, America. Lary Waldman Qualicum Beach * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 26. * Manic Drummer * Madison, WI Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack

* Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag I've known people who plead guilty to things they didn't even do, eimply because they were offered time served so they could get out of jail immediately and go back to their home, jobs and school. That's the biggest travesty of the American justice system behind being falsely/wrongly convicted of something you didn't do. US history is full of cases like that. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend6 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 27. * greg * Mexico Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The U S war on drugs has been more or less the stupid leading the blind. And, the absurd three strikes law was just as bad. What a great country, if you have money, if things are bad enough, you can be represented by the best politically connected law firm in the country, and fight this thing in court and win! If you are broke, plea bargain. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 28. * TuraLura * Brooklyn, NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag An old friend of mine used to advocate something very similar to force the issue of marijuana legalization: a National Turn Yourself In Day. The idea being that if the 40 million or so American citizens who enjoy recreational weed would take a felony amount to their local police station and demand to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, the justice system would be debilitated and the idiocy of marijuana criminalization proved.

Of course it's very difficult to organize this kind of thing, and that's why it's never been tried. But there's no doubt it could be very effective. The courts depend on the ignorance and desperation of their victims, whom the rest of us are only too wiling to forget. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 29. * mh * midwest Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag To change the mindset of politicians who are really driving the money that supports the courts, we need to show them that rehabilitation works, that reentry programs work, diversion works, and we can employ ex offenders who made mistakes. Keep the really bad guys in jail or prison. But, it is a hard sell when politicians are driven by their perception that incarceration is what 'most' Americans want. Many state systems are realizing that its cheaper to rehab than incarcerate, (in most cases about 1/10th the cost). But to get past your senators, governor, mayors, and the judges who are on the bench due to elections, they have to convince their constituents that its a good idea. The other piece of this is the education system. The school system is set up to educate 'most' kids, and those that need attention are frequently suspended, they quit going, an there you have an offender. The highest risk factors for criminal behavior are education and employment. If you don't mandate that schools keep kids there until they are 18, help them succeed, teach them a trade, give them a sense of purpose, their next mentor is their public defender. Philosophical debates about whether to demand a trial or take a plea are nice, but does not address the reality of the day to day issues. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 30. * Jack * New York Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Well first of all, I agree completely with the author regarding the war on drugs. However, this editorial starts out a bit sketchy. A woman's child was killed by accident. Therefore, quite naturally, she became addicted to crack. Huh? I guess that means it's quite natural to become addicted to crack because your child dies. If my child died, I'd certainly become addicted to crack, right? Basically her argument is on target, but I'm sorry she started out with such a weak

example. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 31. * Patrick * San Francisco, CA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag We have a very sick criminal justice system, starting at the top, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's rancid decisions destroying civil liberties and expanding police powers, especially in light of the profoundly racist drug war, have created an insatiable penal industrial complex that only a mass movement can end. Profits for imprisonment, 'rewards' to police departments for making drug arrests, allowing them to keep forfeited money, and for 'reducing crime' (which NYPD understands to mean to ignore reports of serious crimes) and bonuses to prosecutors for the number of convictions (i.e., number of defendants pleading guilty), leaving America with the best judicial system money can buy. No wonder we manage to imprison more of our citizens than any other country in the world. When "justice" becomes a business, there is no justice. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend6 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 32. * Rocketscientist * Chicago, IL Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag It's worse than than. Our legal system benefits the rich, the well-connected and the very criminals we're trying to snare in our legal system. Those who know the system know how the game is played. Those innocent people who have a run in with the cops are gris for the mill. We need to change the laws erasing records after a year for misdemeanors and after 5 years for felonies except murders and such. We need a drug rehab process that stops putting drug addicts on the street without resources in the same neighborhood where they got into trouble in the first place.

I'd love to organize this rebellion. I wonder if something like anonymous could get this rolling. It would be nice to start by hacking police records and erasing them or mayby pranking by replacing names with those of familar politicians. Any, food for thought. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 33. * suzyv * New York City Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The system is already overwhelmed by the ocean of "crime." Police, prosecutors, judges and jurors rubber-stamp defendants into jail. There is no public conversation about it. Multiplying the number of trials would only further diminish the rights accorded by even more arrogant and self-righteous judges. Change will come only as jurors learn to reject the police-prosecutor fictions they are fed by TV. The other side will continue the fight to eliminate and marginalize the jury system, and further conceal the activities and identities of police. It's all sickening, but crime is money for those at the top, as those in the middle enslave themselves to find better housing for their children, away from outlaw police and the violent criminals our prisons manufacture by the application of slow torture. signed suzy v's husband. * March 12, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 34. * lydgate * Virginia NYT Pick Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The American system of mass incarceration is brutal, backwards, and -- most disturbingly -- economically motivated. In communities where blue-collar jobs have been lost because of offshoring and technological change, many laidoff workers have found jobs in the prison system: as guards, clerical workers, and in other capacities. They have a vested interest in laws that lock up as many people as possible. Moreover, because of the Republican push to privatize prisons (along with schools and other institutions

traditionally administered by government), we now have large for-profit prison corporations who actually state, in their annual reports, that they are concerned about relaxing the drug laws because it could result in fewer prisoners and an adverse effect on the company's bottom line. In what other country are the lives of harmless people -- who need treatment rather than punishment -- so casually destroyed in order to make profits for others? The United States truly has lost its way. * March 12, 2012 at 4:40 a.m. * You recommended this88 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 35. * DLukeinMilw * Milwaukee Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Those who take their case to trial are already punished for exercising their right. "Judicial discretion" insures a lengthier sentence to anyone the judge has to spend more time on. I suspect it would take a whole lot of sacrificial defendents to bring about change. It might work, but how many would suffer for how long before others could see the benefits. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 36. * JSN * Iowa City, Iowa Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The criminal justice system has always been afflicted with malfunctions. Is the present malfunction rate higher than normal? Yes. Can it be broken by mass refusal to plea bargain? Yes. What will happen if we break it? Congress and legislatures will try to fix it. That could be worse than what we have now. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter

37. * Thom * DC Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Ms. Alexander, If you are indeed in Columbus you need not look far to verify damage that can be inflicted by this corrupt system on communities as a whole by the degradation of the rule of law. Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) prosecutor Bill Mason has built and supported a corrupt political regime based on over charging and in many cases indicting the innocent to enhance his statistics and to use his office as a cudgel against any form of opposition. Elections fixed, donations strong armed, contracts manipulated, and supporters rewarded all with the threat implicit of grave consequences judicially for refusing to play along or simply getting caught in the crossfire. Mason has turned a blind eye to the most egregious abuse of the public trust by his cronies and acolytes as evidenced by the Friday conviction of a former county commissioner on 33 federal charges. Mason was "unaware". Raising awareness on this sordid mess in the hands of corrupt and power hungry prosecutors gets my vote. With the ever increasing assaults on our privacy and constitutional protections it is prudent to remember that the likes of Bill Mason can will indict a ham sandwich. Until someone or something breaks through this "boys club" the bell tolls for each and every one of us. I encourage Eric Holder to take a long and hard look at Bill Mason and to remember he is sworn to protect us. Letting Mason slide out of office into a cosy sinecure at a big law firm serves no one well except the corrupt. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 38. * Erich * West Dover, VT Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag As compelling an idea as this is, I would start with prosecuting prospectors for their rampant misconduct. Seems to me if there was any honor in the prosecutorial bar, they would insist that their colleagues be held to such a standard. Unfortunately, there is no such honor left amongst them. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m.

* Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 39. * retep * San Francisco Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Rarely do I read a perspective that makes me awaken to an issue as much as this article. Like most upper middle class, college educated, white people in the US, I never think about the criminal system because it is so far from my reality. It is utterly ridiculous that we spend so much on prisons and so little on education. And to incarcerate drug addicts? Really? If this what it takes to get us to have a national conversation, I say we do it. I'll sign the petition. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend11 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 40. * observer * Ontario Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag This is an interesting proposition. The decisions involved and the thought process by defendants has a term of art derived from mathematical game theory .... Prisoner's Dilemma. How appropriate. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 41. * David Zapp * New York City Report Inappropriate Comment *

Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Oh, Michelle, I have thought of that many times. I use to work as a Legal Aid lawyer in New York City and the drug prosecutors there had a policy: one charge below the top count and I would have liked to have said: well we, the Legal Aid Society have a policy: two counts below the top count, and I urged my colleagues to just stop the machine by everyone insisting on going to trial. The prosecutors would come to their senses, especially in New York. But no one seemed to want to do it. They thought I was venting, and there was an ethical problem, it was said, because I didn't buy it: What if our clients wanted to plead guilty? I said that's ridiculous. Our clients always had more guts than we did. They lived their lives on longer odds. If we were ready to go to trial, they would follow. And even if a few had to take a hit, which they would, thousands of others would benefit from their sacrifice. I'm with you. It would be cool to see. David Zapp * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 42. * Angry Dad * New Jersey Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The real injustice here (since we are, after all, talking about guilty people, at least of something) is the way the prosecution routinely charges, say, 10 - 16 felony counts for the same misconduct, so as to both almost guarantee a conviction on some count if the case is tried, and to threaten the defendant with an impressive potential for incarceration. Then, dropping it to a plea for one or two counts with a much lower possible figure for jail time seems most reasonable. This is worse at the federal level, what with the total lack of early release (apart from maybe a 10% haircut for good behavior and some extra if you can get access (by actually being impaired) to a substance control program (no, that you drink cocktails like an upper-class fish just won't do it) AND the grossly high minimums (ok, so the sentencing guidelines are now not 'mandatory' - they're still the main reference book, what with the add-ons and deductions, and it still takes a rare and sympathetic judge to ignore the guidelines). But it certainly, for a while, would slow the system down if not crash it. The real issue, of course, is to get the underlying laws changed, but without the direct action of the legislature until forced to do so. And how long would this 'occupy' revolution last? How long could it last? The system would firstly respond by not granting bail, but that would jam up the jails very quickly. So, yes, it would cause a crash. What then? * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter

43. * carol psky * Malvern, PA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Excellent. This is the first suggestion that I think could really point out the insanity of our "justice" system. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 44. * Dick Thompson * Virginia Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Republican and Harvard law professor, William Stuntz likely would agree. His book, "The Collapse of American Criminal Justicepresents a detailed case. Great review here: http://articles.boston.com/2012-0226/ideas/31094279_1_prison-population... * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 45. * Diane * Westchester Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic

Submit Cancel Flag I agree with crash the system. If every New York lawyer volunteered to take one pro bonon case (and for people without criminal experience, take a simple one) we could bring honesty to the system. Here is my proposal. Take 10% of every punitive damage. Start a fund to open a second shift of courts. A speedy trial for everyone who wants one. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 46. * April * New York City Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag "bayboat" has a point. Such a protest might increase, not decrease, the number of prisoners in our "criminal industrial complex". Some people are guilty. But in New York we still have watered down Rockefeller drug laws. A friend in FBI drug enforcement here told me he often felt bad for some he arrested, knowing what long sentences they'd receive for small amounts of drugs. Mostly minorities, of course. I'm glad to hear "Jim Crow" expanded to the whole country. We need an economic rights movement, same tactics as the Civil Rights Movement, to make it easier for blacks to find jobs. None at fruit stands around the upper west side. None at snack stands in Central Park. Two African American gardeners. Why so few? I propose a silent vigil down Park Avenue, home of the .001%, down to Wall St, a single file line of people standing quietly, holding signs, (mine would read"Job Creators, Where are the Jobs?"), blocking no entrances, exits, no driveways. We learned that from Quakers in Chapel Hill, NC, used it there to protest the Vietnam War, after non violent methods in the civil rights movement, and to protest a "Speaker Ban" initiated by the State Government on anyone who had ever had communist connections. The state backed down. Would Bloomberg arrest us immediately, with the dignity our silence endowed? (No drums.) We should occupy the place that welcomes us & gets coverage for large crowds: The National Mall in DC, Abe looking down benevolently. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 47. * Kathi T * Pittstown, NJ Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel

Flag The system is absolutely rigged. How about the prosecutors who go after bigger fish (so they can then run for public office)? The threats are never-ending; they keep biting until the victim has no money and no energy to carry on. And I just love the two stories currently in the news -- the New York madam in jail -- who cares? Who has been hurt by her? Who has been hurt by her clients? And the other story about private organizations running jails and demanding the courts keep the jails at at least 90% occupancy. Where is this country going? * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 48. * Photomatte * Oregon, USA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag A very close friend of mine was a public defender in southern Oregon. He also advocated going to trial as often as possible, even for the most negligible offenses. Within two years of taking the job, he'd won more cases than the rest of his office combined had done. The prosecutors down there simply weren't prepared for trial most of the time, as they should be. I applaud the idea of taking every case to trial. It forces the attorneys to actually do their job and not just 'play the system' and collect their paychecks. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend8 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 49. * michaelcarven * santa monica, ca Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag bravo on all points. no elected official ever talks of the rail-roading in the justice system. they are the ones creating it, with their guidelines, their three strikes,their so called police training where being arrested is already a sign of guil-if they didn't already shoot you dead , their piling charge upon charge-you could indite a chicken sandwich... but they talk of freedom and liberty...yeah * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend4 *

o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 50. * Greenpa * MN Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Journalists! Do Your Duty! Keep these stories alive. A great many people in the US are painfully aware that our "justice" these days is a horror. As witness the story right here, a couple days ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/nyregion/officer-sues-claiming-police-... Where is today's follow up on that one?? * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 51. * Craig Miller * Passaic, NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag This scenario was already thought up over 37 years ago!!. In 1975 author James Mill wrote ONE JUST MAN about a public defender who starts a no plea bargain movement. in NYC. The result is not pretty for any one involved. Well worth reading. It is obvious that our justice system lack an important feedback loop. If its goal is to make a meaningful separation between the innocent and guilty then the culture of mass plea bargaining where prosecutors are evaluated on the number of guilty pleas creates perverse incentives that destroy lives and waste scarce public resources. Absent creating meaningful measures of success for our court system, a mass movement may become inevitable. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 52. * Tristan Smithe

* California Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The quote that ends the article is perfect. Too perfect, in fact. Six consecutive sentences of well-phrased language that summarize the main argument of the piece, all without a single editorial omission (no triple dots) or clarification (no square brackets). Furthermore, the phrasing is much more like that of something that was written rather than something that was spoken - read it aloud and it sounds quite odd. Finally, the length of the quote is such that it would be almost impossible to have noted it all down, unless the conversation was recorded (during an "evening phone conversation"). So while I recognize the seriousness of what I'm saying, I think there are ample grounds to doubt the authenticity of that final quote. Perhaps as a lawyer, rather than journalist, Ms. Alexander is using a different set of standards regarding what it means to present something as a direct quote. P.S. For what it is worth, I fully agree with her argument. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 53. * flmbear * Marblehead, MA-Roberts Creek, BC Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Our system of criminal justice cannot handle the burden of cases, and it consumes nearly all of the trial time available for civil disputes. This is not limited to the US. Look at Canada. In British Columbia a recent editorial in the Sun suggested directing Vancouver PD not to arrest because there is no possibility of bringing anyone to trial within a year, the cutoff. If we want a state of law and order, we must pay for it. If we want a system of justice we need to think long and hard about what constitutes a crime and end the mass arrest programs that are creating the problem. I'd like to tell my clients that they will have a trial in their civil cases within a reasonable time. My last major case experience was over 7 years. And even in the Massachusetts Land Court it took more than 16 years to bring down an illegal house built on an illegal lot. Justice is supposed to move forward deliberately, but not without end. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 54. * Eudoxus

* Westchester Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag It is hard to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the US system unless we compare it to what goes on in other countries. I know that many countries don't have plea bargaining and all cases go to trial. However, their trials are more efficient than what goes on in the US. Is is time for the Times to have an investigative reporter dig deeper than this article does. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 55. * Dale * Chico, CA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag This revelation has been the dirty little secret of the criminal defense bar for decades. Plea-bargaining is dealmaking in its most basic form. The State offers deals to save its resources, the defendant hedges his exposure. If everyone went to trial, the deals would become incredibly, irresisitibly sweet, for awhile. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 56. * Dustin Steinhauer * College Station, TX Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel

Flag Prisoner's Dilemma en masse? * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 57. * Jeff * New York Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Ah, where to start, with the suggestion, by a lawyer, no less, that she would plea guilty to a crime she did not commit rather than face trial; with her equating a freely taken, individual decision not to exercise a right in a particular way with not having that right; with the description of the American system as "a brutal system of racial and social control;" or with the fact that the sympathetic exemplar of the unfairness is a multiple offender who, by her own admission, has been a beneficiary of the plea bargain system of reduced charges in exchange for guilty pleas? * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend1 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 58. * RC * Minnesota Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Excellent article. Of all the presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, only Ron Paul dares to talk about restoring the US Constitution. Unfortunately for the country, the media are happy with the status quo. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 59. * Demoralized * Virginia Report Inappropriate Comment

* Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Thank you for writing this brilliant overview of one of the many outrageous abusives within the American criminal justice system today. For an example of a Virginia educator who was charged with a series of sex crimes simply for trying to do his job, but did stand up for himself by refusing a politically motivated prosecutor's "deal" and won at least a legal victory, please read this article from WIred Magazine: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/sexting-hysteri/ * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 60. * JackieHK * NJ Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Another idea, a smart Democratic Governer could implement: 1) Release thousands of low-offence, non-violent crime prisoners all at once. 2) Cut the State budget for prisons. 3) Direct the money to other state-debt relief. 4) The only way to re-incarcerate the released prisoners is to raise State taxes on the rich. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 61. * Al * Midwest Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory *

Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Yeah, this is a stupid plan that fundamentally misunderstands the causes of mass incarceration and, consequently, would be just as much of a failure as Bell's jury nullification plan. Masses of people accept plea bargains because they are guilty. Going to trial won't change this. And we have the crimes we have, the penalties we have, and the enforcement we have because that's what most people *want.* Legislators care a lot less about this or that crime than they do about getting reelected...but constituents care about crime more than just about anything else...particularly at the state level, where 98% of crimes are prosecuted. If all cases were tried, the public would - with some grumbling perhaps - pony up more money. Meanwhile, the criminals on whose back this experiment is being carried out would end up serving 10 years rather than 2 years. Progress of a sort, I suppose. Comfortable upper middle class people misunderstand a lot of things about crime. Derrick Bell believed that blacks on a jury seeing other blacks prosecuted for drug crimes would rather nullify than convict. But this is completely wrong - the blacks on the jury are the ones who see the drug dealers outside their apartments every day. These are the people who want something done about crime and who want the streets cleaned up. People living in areas with no street crime tend to assume the opposite and are gravely mistaken. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 62. * David Zapp * New York City Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag oh, michelle, i have thought of that many times. i use to work as a legal aid lawyer in new york city and the drug prosecutors there had a policy: one charge below the top count and i would have liked to have said: well we, the legal aid society have a policy: two counts below the top count, and I urged my colleagues to just stop the machine by everyone insisting on going to trial. the prosecutors would come to their senses, especially in new york. but no one seemed to want to do it, and there was an ethical problem, it was said, because i didn't buy it. what if our clients wanted to plead guilty? i said that's bulls----. our clients always had more b----s than we did. they lived their lives on longer odds. if we were ready to go to trial, they would follow. and even if a few had to take a hit which they would, thousands of others would benefit from their sacrifice. I'm with you. it would be cool to see. david zapp * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter

63. * Operator243 * NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag I don't know about other jurisdictions, but I know A LOT about NYC's criminal justice system. Here, no one takes a felony plea for a low-level, first-time possession offense. No one. (Well, you may find some exception that proves the rule, but NYC pleas go down, not up.) If a person takes a felony possession plea, either the person's history or the amount of drugs or the circumstance (e.g, being the subject of a search warrant) was egregious. Is a person with a sixty-arrest rap sheet, or a person arrested with a kilo of cocaine, or a person who lives in and/or operates a crack house someone Times readers want released? With regard to arresting, jailing, trying, and ultimately imprisoning drug offenders, realize this: for most, mere possession is not their only offense, even if it's the only one on the docket. How does a heroin user living in public housing support a deck-a-day habit? Who commits a disproportionate share of petty property crime (e.g., car breakins)? Ms. Alexander may not like it, but the fact that police started holding low-level offenders accountable in the early 1990s resulted in the lion's share of the crime decrease since. (See the late James Q. Wilson's writings.) Every night an otherwise unemployed rock-cocaine addict spends at Rikers is one night he or she isn't stealing the GPS out of your car. P.S. Comparing our justice system to slavery does an injustice to the indefensible horror that was the middle passage and our "peculiar institution." * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend6 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 64. * Gort * Southern California Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The right to trial by jury isn't all it's cracked up to be. There is no guarantee that the defendant will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is no guarantee that the jury will understand the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. According to an experienced criminal attorney, juries are more likely to presume guilt (since a person is arrested, he must have done something wrong) , and convict on a preponderance of evidence. I was charged with midemeanor domestic violence. I would have gone to trial, except for one minor inconvenience: the police overcharged and tacked on a charge of criminal threat, which is a wobbler, but is always charged as a felony in CA. The criminal threat was highly suspect, but had I gone to trial, I would have run the risk of a felony

conviction, which would have ruined my life. I entered the plea on the misdemeanor charge, and the felony charge was dropped. Seems to me that the challenge to the system should be based on 14th amendment denial of due process rather than eight amendment cruel and unusual pumishment. The "justice" system uses trumped up charges to force defendants to waive their rights. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 65. * Charles * CA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag There is a collective action problem with serious consquences. In order for this to work, most criminal defendants need to be on board. Most probably won't be though, because, reasonably, they won't want to gamble with their lives. So the few defendants that ascribe to this will get badly screwed. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend2 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 66. * Michael Hamilton * Seattle WA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag It's time for the ABA to start a top-down reform movement. Part of the reason the plea bargain system is unchallenged is because lawyers themselves are vested in it. Judges, prosecutors, "defense" lawyers are often friends, they often switch roles, etc. They know firsthand that the system is unjust but every day they go to work and then look the other way, pretending not to see what they're doing. And a historical note: the plea bargain system is a legacy of Prohibition. It was invented when illegal alcohol cases were overwhelming the courts. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend3 * o Share this on Facebook

o Share this on Twitter 1. * doug keene * thailand Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag I spent fifteen years as a defense lawyer in Texas, in two different counties. In my experience, defense lawyers took their professional responsibilities very seriously. There was no "looking the other way" so as to bring an unjust outcome to his client. You have to remember that defense lawyers have not much to lose by going to trial--they make more money. It is their clients who have much more to lose, because of the often harsh sentencing by juries. Right now the maximum penalty for sale of many drugs in most states is the same as for intentionally murdering someone. It takes a brave defendant to face going to jail for the rest of his life when he might be offered a plea bargain for a couple of years, or even probation. You want to make a change, change the law. Educate juries. As long as we have these draconian laws and harsh jury verdicts, then copping a plea is often the only way to get a halfway reasonable outcome. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 67. * tommyboy * aiken, s.c. Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag it is a tough call for a defendant to go to trial, knowing if found guilty, they may spend so much more in prisons. so most people, like the article says take the plea. i did, because it made the difference of 30 months in prison or a possibiliity of 5-30 yrs. in prison. now don't jump to conclusions, because you do not know my whole case. i spent 30 months in prison because i was allegedly a sex offender. now what comes to mind when you say that? disgust? and i agree, but in my case, i never had a victim. the FBI went into a gay chat room in buffalo n.y. and posed as a 14 year old. i immediately told him to leave the room, as this room is for adults 21 yrs and older. the alleged kid (FBI) said, all i want to do is find out who i am. i said as a gay man, that i understand your situation. there are hundreds of young gay boys and men committing suicide today because they are being bullied for the way GOD put them on this earth. in any case, i was going to go to trial, but was told by my court appointed attorney, that my first communication with this kid, would not be allowed before a jury of my peers. all they would talk about is the 2nd communication THREE months later, where the subject of sex came up. i never contacted this fake kid for 3 months, but he email me and asked to come over. i was thinking mentoring. the FBI had different ideas. so knowing the jury would not hear that i told him to leave, they would find me guilty. so i took the plea. BEST WISHES. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m.

* Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 68. * Susan * Alexandria, VA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Having spent many years as a prosecutor, I find this article to be troubling and incredibly biased. How can we talk about the justice system and there be no mention of the implication that this would have on the millions of victims who are involuntarily "hauled" into court every year through no action of their own? The reality is that many defendants are allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to spare those who have been victimized from being victimized again. And instead of advocating "chaos", wouldn't we all be better off if we started to frame the discussion on ways to work together to reduce crimes from being committed in the first place? I think by working on ways to increase awareness about drug use and addiction, emphasizing the importance of education and promoting family values is a more productive conversation to have. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 69. * Oakbranch * California Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag A brilliant idea, this crashing the system. Also, let's not forget the problems in the civil legal system, which to my mind are even more unjust. At least if you are accused of a crime you are entitled to an attorney if you cannot afford one. If you are sued in civil court and cannot afford an attorney, not only are you not given one, but you are threatened with the possibility of losing your home if you can't pay whatever settlement fee the plaintiff seeks. Many people would prefer a week or month in jail, over losing their home, so it really makes no sense that the attorney is assigned only in criminal as oppposed to civil cases. In many civil cases, the potential damage to the defendant could be greater. The entire legal system, both criminal and civil, is monstrous in its inability to take context and unique factors into account in the application of law. Blindfolded lady justice is considered to be a symbol of fairness, but justice cannot be done by a system blind to the context of the situation, and unable to prevent the steamroller of the letter of the law from squashing and destroying many lives. We must throw out the blind application of the letter of the law, and find a way to return real wisdom and fairness back to the legal system, a system operating under the spirit, not the letter of the law.

I'd expect more wisdom and justice from Deborah, the judge under the palm tree in ancient Israel, than from any part of our legal system today. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 70. * David Zapp * New York City Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag oh, michelle, i have thought of that many times. i use to work as a legal aid lawyer in new york city and the drug prosecutors there had a policy: one charge below the top count and i would have liked to have said: well we, the legal aid society have a policy: two counts below the top count, and I urged my colleagues to just stop the machine by everyone insisting on going to trial. the prosecutors would come to their senses, especially in new york. but no one seemed to want to do it, and there was an ethical problem, it was said, because i didn't buy it. what if our clients wanted to plead guilty? i said that's bulls----. our clients always had more b----s than we did. they lived their lives on longer odds. if we were ready to go to trial, they would follow. and even if a few had to take a hit which they would, thousands of others would benefit from their sacrifice. I'm with you. it would be cool to see. david zapp * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 71. * Tom Rowe * undefined Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag We as a country already incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other country in the world. The so-called "war on drugs" is a factor in that, but we were already close to the top of the list before that came along. Its a culture that is relatively uninterested in rehabilitation but wants to punish people for deviating from the norm. One option is to eliminate mandatory sentencing guidelines and place the control of that back in the hands of judges instead of the prosecutors. Another is to legalize marijuana and mandate treatment (via the drug court system)

for all addicts. That saves money and erodes the level off illegal drug use. Notice I said all addicts. Currently, if you commit a crime other than just using, you cannot use the system and its all State courts anyway - needs to be at the federal level as well. Finally, if defense attorneys would explain to those charged the longer-termed consequences of a plea bargain, you might just have enough resistance to crash the system. The "Law of Criminal Justice Thermodynamics" proposed by Lindeman suggests that even minor resistance would result in fewer or lower charges being brought as happened in the 1970's with the Rockefeller drug laws tightening down the system. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend7 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 72. * somdev * Mount Pleasant, Mi Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Every felony conviction is a life sentence. Although the person is not in prison but his/her life is ruined forever. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * Recommend9 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 73. * Dave V. * Pacific Northwest NYT Pick Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag This is but one example of the corruption of the court system - we no longer have a Judicial Branch of government, because justice is no longer the goal. "Law enforcement" is the aim of a court system that simply puts people through a meat-grinder of labyrinthine rules; them with the highest-priced (best) lawyer, wins. If you tend to discount my belief, ask yourself: "What has our (supposed) judicial system done to bring the Wall Street criminal who crashed the economy to justice? What has our judicial system done to address the war crimes of torture and illegitimate war committed in our name? The answer is nothing - the victimless crime of growing weeds to smoke for self-intoxication carry penalties far worse than anything the financial or political elite will ever face. The entire system is corrupt beyond redemption. The sooner any myth to the contrary is dispelled, the sooner the

system might be reformed for the better. * March 12, 2012 at 3:29 a.m. * You recommended this78 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 74. * Peter * Brooklyn Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Combine the rush to force a plea with utterly unreasonable drug laws and the large number of coerced confessions - and it explains much of the mess we're in; one that wastes lives and money and causes unimaginable suffering. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend8 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 75. * Bill Blackstone * a Law book Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Forsooth! Doth not 42 U.S.C. 1983 state: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress[...]"? And doth not a Prosecutor deprive the accused of his Constitutional rights when he manipulateth him into taking a Plea Bargain? I think your Prosecutors ought be brought swiftly to Justice, and if remedies at Law sufficeth not, then the People ought consider using more permanent methods of removing them. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * You recommended this3 * o Share this on Facebook

o Share this on Twitter 76. * Spike The Dog * Marblehead, MA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag What would happen if people just stopped using drugs? That would bankrupt the prison system. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 1. * pspiegel * San Francisco, CA Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag You mean "their" drugs, don't you, Spike? Surely you don't mean alcohol, caffeine and nicotine. Those are OUR drugs! Who could ever be expected to stop using them? It would be inhuman!! Fundamentally, people will always use drugs. Locking up some of them for using certain types of drugs doesn't solve anything. * March 12, 2012 at 5:25 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 77. * MJ * Washington Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam

* Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag They plead guilty because they are guilty. A PA doesn't have enough resources to spend the time charging people who can't be proven guilty. The guilty are getting a break/deal for speeding things up. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 78. * Kathy * Orange County, NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Thank you, thank you, thank you, for telling it like it is. "Plea bargains" give local law enforcement their *97 percent conviction rate" as if to say that they never make a mistake when they make an arrest. Right here in my own county, our District Attorney boasts such a rate of conviction, but how did his office achieve it? Most of it through plea bargaining. Sadly, judge's decisions are tossed aside once the incarcerated person enters the system. They may recommend treatment that is never received, and the person just becomes a numerical animal in the prison system. If this is the way to "revolutionize" the current police state we are living in, I say we should all GO FOR IT---even for a traffic ticket. Give these "heavyweights" in the justice system something to do besides stand at a desk and commiserate your life away---all on the taxypayers' dime and at the expense of the poor and terrified "clients" who think the plea bargain will help them. Ninety nine times out of 100, it is a sad joke that only leads to more time, more incarcerations, constant monitoring by probation, etc. Enough's enough!!!! * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend16 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 79. * Mark * Houston Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Thoughtful article - Let me offer the perspective of a career Texas prosecutor:

1. We have no mandatory minimums or automatic three-strike laws in Texas. Such enhanced sentences for repeat offenders are an option, but are only used in a clear minority of cases - in my experience. 2. I have no doubt the system would 'crash' if everyone demanded a trial. However, so many of the Defendants concurrently demanding a trial in an effort to shake the system would likely be found 'guilty' by a jury (because prosecutors would not waste time pursuing cases with weak evidence) that the remaining Defendants awaiting trial may well decide to take a plea bargain - which is quite likely to be a lesser sentence than what an angry jury or political judge might hand down. 3. If prison overcrowding is an issue in a particular State, the parole laws are a way to control that problem. 4. The presumption of innocense is paramount in this country - as is the right to a jury trial - but in the big picture, I ask everyone to consider if there should be a civic and moral duty to take responsibility for the wrongs you have committed - thus, pleas of 'guilty'. 5. Final thought: If de-criminalizing drug possession was the collective response to an overburdened criminal justice system - I have no doubt that the number of drug addicts would increase - is society prepared to shoulder the economic cost of 'free' substance abuse treatment programs as a basic right ? A debate would be worthwhile. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend6 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 1. * dr funguy * Abottsford, BC Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag "I have no doubt that the number of drug addicts would increase" This is a common mis-conception for which there is no evidence. In fact there is evidence that it is false -- see Alaska after legalizing pot or many other states where decriminalization was tried. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend6 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 2. * john deware * Canada Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag The number of addicts have not increased in Amsterdam, even though drug is legalised.Maybe you should

look at Europe before drawing conclusion. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend7 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 3. * Dennis Keith * eastern Washington state Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Regarding final thought #5. Please explain why you have no doubt that the number drug addicts would would increase if drug possession was decriminalized. Do you seriously expect us to believe that there are substantial numbers of citizens in this country who are only being prevented from destroying their lives with drug addiction by the existence of laws prohibiting it? Pray tell, why didn't that work for all our current addicts? Let's have that debate. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. * Recommend8 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 80. * bf * evanston, il Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag read Courtroom 302 by Paul Begira to see how it works in Chicago. Crashing the system by everyone demanding a trial would go a long way to change the Chicago police practice of mass arrests of minority males. The criminal justice system is a form of government blackmail to keep poor people in jail and afraid. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 81. * caplane * Bethesda, MD Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar *

Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag Hotels and hospitals can have vacancies. Not prisons. Once built, they are always filled to capacity and beyond. Double the number of prisons and our society would simply find new behaviors to criminalize. This isn't to suggest that those who break the social contract should not be punished. But incarcerating those who have no history of violence is counter productive. Treat them. Help them. If they have resources, fine them. But lock them up? * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend8 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 82. * Jake * Brooklyner, NY Report Inappropriate Comment * Vulgar * Inflammatory * Personal Attack * Spam * Off-topic Submit Cancel Flag No criminal defendant should have to face the power of the state alone. Some institutional defenders have made a difference, either through top-down organizational missions to be holistic or community-based (for instance the Bronx Defenders or Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem) or even through attorney-union sponsored strikes (at NYC Legal Aid). But public defenders who lack the training, money or support to investigate the facts, address underlying social needs or advice on collateral consequences such as the ones discussed by Ms Alexander will be mere handmaidens to criminal justice incarceration complex. It is the understandable fear of these lawyers that they are powerless to aid their clients which leads many of them to steer defendants to the known and thus "safer" outcome of a negotiated plea. Prof Jake Stevens Director, Criminal Justice Clinic Maurice Deane School of Law at Hofstra University * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend5 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 83. * Ken Arnold * Portland, OR It is a scandal that so many Americans, and particularly people of color, are incarcerated in our country. The judicial system is not designed to produce justice, only socially-acceptable results: lock 'em up. Changing it will require dramatic challenges of the sort Susan advocates: bring it down. It is the kind of activism we see in the Occupy movement. The "system" won't change because the existing way of doing things benefits the people who run it. Incremental change is not enough to fix some of the broken parts of our culture. What's required is a do-over, originating among those most damaged by a society organized increasingly around wealth and privilege. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m.

84. * David Sapire * Houston One of the many reasons for me leaving South Africa in 1970 and emigrating to the US was the egregious tyranny of the South Afrivjudicial system in which incarceration without recourse to habeus corpus or legal representation, competent or not. Viewed from a distance of thousands of miles and seduced by the stories in American magazines such as Time and Newsweek about the protection of civil liberties in the US, I felt that this would be the best place to bring up my family. Sadly, I have witnessed the slow and relentless descent of the legal and judicial system into a vicious quest for power and political * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. 85. * Wilder * Plano Agree with the article. The only fly in the ointment is that exercising the right to trial would probably lead to creating more lawyers. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. 86. * Michael S * Wappingers Falls, NY This is not just a problem for the poor or for drug addicts, taking a plea verses draconian punishment exists for all persons charged with a felony. Just as one example, the only doctor ever charged with homicide in New York for a patent death due to negligence was offered a plea in exchange for a 1 to 3 sentence (a minimum felony sentence i n those days), he went to trial and got 25 to life. If in the opinion of the judge and prosecutors justice would have been served by serving a year in prison what does 25 years represent? Obviously punishment for insisting on a jury trial. There are similar examples among those accused of purely regulatory crimes. There is a massive criminal-justice industry in this country that feeds on our expansive definition of crime and draconian penalties. The list is impressive: lawyers, judges, prosecutors, policemen, court clerks, bailiffs, court reporters, prison guards etc and all the contractors who supply everything from toilet paper to handcuffs to building courtrooms. The only bright spot is the recession. With declining tax revenues and widening budgetary gaps states have begun to aggressively cut their prison population. Unfortunately any unemployment in the criminal justice system will probably be the first to recover; indeed refusing to take a plea will only increase the need for employees in Justice Inc. * March 12, 2012 at 2:48 a.m. 87. * bayboat * jersey shore What would happen if we organized thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people charged with crimes to refuse to play the game, to refuse to plea out? I guess we'd have to build more jails to house the criminals. You wanna play hardball?...ok! * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 1. * HT * New York City why put the money into jails rather than into housing, education and health care that would address the real problems of our culture. why make the legal system responsible for crimes that have no victims, particularly drug offenses that do nothing more than burden people with consequences that would further hinder their participation in society. oh * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. 2. * pspiegel * San Francisco, CA Using what money? Maybe we should raise taxes for this purpose? * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. 88. * AJ * CA About one percent of our population is incarcerated. That may seem like "mass" incarceration to bleeding heart

activists, but I think most of us are fine with this fact knowing our families can sleep a little safer. Instead of threatening to crash our criminal justice system, why not work on reducing the number of people committing crimes? Or do you really believe behind every criminal in jail is a story of some kind soul wrongfully accused? * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. Read All 5 Replies 1. * Old Mountain Man * New England Of those one percent, a large fraction are nonviolent drug offenders. Throwing large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders into prison doesn't make me safer and doesn't make me feel safer. Better to reform the drug laws, which are a disaster. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. 2. * dr funguy * Abottsford, BC Why does the US incarcerate more of its people than any other nation? Could it be that the law enforcement-prison bureaucracy perpetuates itself? Is it a crime to possess and use a plant? We should focus on only jailing those who are violent offenders. Though I might make an exception for corporate criminals. * March 12, 2012 at 4:39 a.m. 89. * JMV * Philadelphia, PA The movement to privatize prisons involves a guarantee of certain number of prisoners. Hence, a strong incentive to keep the prisons full. * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 90. * Faith * Ohio Are we saying that innocent people are being forced, en masse, to plea bargain, so that these same innocent people can avoid potentially even harsher sentences than the plea bargain would allow? That is a whole different scenario than what I think this article is stating: that the guilty are being saddled by the stigma of being a felon because they pled guilty, favoring less punishment ,rather than take a chance with a trial and a jury and risk greater punishment. Sure, I feel badly for anyone who loses her children; I feel badly for the poor children. But these tragic scenarios took place not because of a plea bargain; they took place because of a criminal act committed by the mother. The "what-if" always seems rosy in our fantasies; but it is just that: a preconceived perception of what could have been, with no knowledge of all the steps in between, let alone the actual nature of that unachieved reailty. * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. Read All 5 Replies 1. 91. * morty * new york, ny Reflect upon the case of Erma Faye Stewart -- and ask yourself the question posed by John Donne: 'For whom does the bell toll?' * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 92. * Katie * Baltimore The concept brings to mind the concept of "jury nullification" and some of Derrick Bell's propositions. Looking forward to reading Ms. Alexander's book. Thanks for this thought-provoking article. * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 93. * Yoyo * NY, ny A related notion, a Constitutional ban on offering plea bargains, is another interesting item on which to noodle. Prosecutors would be much more careful and thoughtful about which cases they brought, what types of charges they brought, which types of crimes were prioritized in their word, etc. SOLELY based on the likelihood of conviction IF they

knew that ALL cases would be tried and decided on the merits. The unintended consequences would likely be quite massive and, unfortunately I fear, not all come down on the side of greater law and order. * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 94. * poomakmak * tent Yes and yes again--if the judicial system is rigged, only resistance by forcing such a system to an actual crisis concerning its own performance is required. So are economic and school boycotts called for: passive acceptance is not working for those caught in the wheels of domination. * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 95. * Know Nothing * AK Sounds like an option to me. Certainly the present situation is an offense against humanity.( and try to get an obvious judicial injustce reversed. Careers are made on convictions, not integrity and justice.) * March 12, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. 1. * bayboat * jersey shore How is a plea bargain an "offense against humanity?' A plea bargin is a guilty person saying "OK , I did it...now lets get this over with" You libs should be THRILLED with plea bargains. They get the criminals out on the street sooner. * March 12, 2012 at 3:28 a.m. * Recommend4 * o Share this on Facebook o Share this on Twitter 2. * vklip * Pennsylvania Except, Bayboat, it isn't necessarily a guilty person saying OK, I did it. It is often a person charged with multiple crimes for an offense that s/he didn't commit, being offered a plea bargain of probation on one of the lesser charges and being told that if s/he demands a trial, all charges will be pressed, with potentially a very serious sentebce, My son was arrested several years ago, about a month after he was visiting a friend who got into a fight with a police officer neighbor. My son was not part of the fight. The police were able to "identify" him because he had been illegally (unConstitutionally) stopped and frisked on his friend's block while on the way to visit his friend because my son wore his hair in a mohawk. In the friend's fight with the police officer, the friend pulled a starter pistol (which only uses blanks and wasn't loaded). Dumb, yes - very dumb. When my son was arrested he was charged with misdemeanor and felony assault and multiple firearms violations. I was working for a lawyer who had experience in criminal defense, who defended my son. There were 3 preliminary hearings, at which neither the complaining officer nor the arresting officer (2 different people) appeared, and a year later the charges were dismissed. And my son paid to have his record expunged. He was offered a plea of misdemeanor assault early on, and refused. Should he have accepted it? And have a permanent criminal record for something he didn't do? * March 12, 2012 at 4:49 a.m. 3. * KCG * Catskill, NY In Bayboat's world, it the police arrest someone, they are by definition guilty. Bayboat has obviously never read the United States Constitution. Bayboat, in case you didn't get the memo - there is a presumption of innocence. The prosecution must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" based upon evidence presented to the court.