I'm not a lawyer but every time I look at the criminal justice system I do wonder how it could be constitutional given the strong protections of the bill of rights.<p>> Recall how plea deals are structured, and how the entire purpose of a suspended jail sentence is to dangle the anvil over someone’s head to “encourage” them to do the things they’re supposed to do.<p>Is this really how the founders meant justice to be pursued? You get picked up for an illegal substance and, in exchange for a reasonable punishment, you have to give up your right to a jury trial? And your punishment is often that you give up another constitution right -- like by being monitored 24/7? But you're not guaranteed that's your only punishment, you also give up the right to a jury trial in the future so if you break parole they drop an anvil on you without any process or standard of evidence?<p>I'd be curious if I'm mistaken and this was all very common in federal trials of post-revolution America.
That was some excellent writing; I hope people find the time to read the article.<p>And on a significant tangent from the article's main point: A friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. I struggle with some very, very dark sentiments towards them.
The first thing I would think if I was brought into court like that would be: why are we even here? What is the purpose of this exercise? So three individuals can do some bizarre ritual dance of logic, rhetoric, and blind willful emotion, and the conclusion of this dance decides a man's life? A family's life?<p>A rational person might judge the situation and see that, yes, it's not fair for this man to commit a crime that could put other's lives at stake. But that he also has a family to care for, and that we might solve the problem by simply taking away his right to drive, as well as simultaneously giving him the support he needs (transportation so he doesn't need to drive and get DUIs, as well as psychological support). But that's not what we give him. We either give him a slap on the wrist, or deport him.<p>We all know that there has to be a better way, but as far as I can tell, nothing is being done about it. It's like with software design. We just have these shitty tools, that have to work in these shitty ways, and we all know there must be a better way, but inertia and cargo cult and incumbency keeps us stuck in a rut. If there is progress, it's unacceptably slow and disorganized.
> There’s a dull reality to my job, which is that my clients have almost always done the thing they’re accused of doing. And usually the evidence against them is overwhelming — not even a close call. [...] This is one reason why almost everyone chooses to plead guilty. Ninety-four percent of state cases and 97% of federal cases are resolved by a plea deal, to be exact.<p>A few years back a barrage of press articles presented the plea bargains as the tool of a oppressive justice system that doesn't care about real truth or justice but only about conviction rates. This public defender's opinion is certainly not much in accord.