Michelle Alexander, in an op-ed in Sunday's NY Times, put forth this idea:
The criminal justice system depends, at the trial level, on the willing complicity of the defendants to play their part in lubricating the gears of the machine. Specifically, the defendants have to agree to give up their right to be tried in order for the system to function.
So what would happen, she wonders, if the defendants decided to stop playing their role, and if a hell of a lot more of them said: "I've got a right to a trial. Prove your case, motherfucker."
The answer, of course, is that the system would crash. It would really crash if the defendants also refused to waive their constitutional right to a speedy trial.
It would never happen, of course. The prosecutors would peel people off by offering very attractive deals. The judges would max out everyone convicted at a trial. For the system needs blood to work and it will not be denied.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Who's going to step up and be the ones who bleed for the rest? Which lawyers are going to tell their clients, "If you don't plead out for 30 days, the next guy will get a better deal."
Nice idea. Not even close to being workable. Elect better judges.
As a scared person facing an up and coming DUI case, I Admit : I'd drop my drawers and grab my ankles for an easy way out of this. Deals ? Hell yea. At 58 I value my time and freedom excessievly, I don't need this shit.Not the time for me to make a point any more.
w3ski
Post a Comment