Busting Out: Ten Things Citizens Can Do to Reduce Rates of Incarceration

[BridgeTheGap]

The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Some criminologists have found that when too many people are incarcerated the crime rate actually increases. Imagine if we spent some of the $70 billion a year prisons cost on education, job training, and health care. Paul Butler, a law professor, former federal prosecutor, and author of Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice, suggests ways to undo the damage caused by overincarceration:

http://www.utne.com/Politics/Ten-Things-Citizens-Reduce-Incarceration.aspx?utm_content=04.19.10+Environment&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

[no_hypocrisy]

1. When I was assigned a client in the county jail, I not only got him released, but I also

changed my schedule to go personally with him to his mandated visits to his parole officer and waited while he took his anger management classes. The parole officer was amazed an attorney would take the time to follow through on a client.

If you can team up with a parolee to help make the transition back and even help him/her find employment, return to school, get skills training, then you're reducing recidivism and one less future prisoner.

[Deep13]

2. A few points.

1. Jury nullification is illegal. Jurors swear an oath to comply with the judge's instructions. If the court tells you that if the state proves A, B and C beyond a reasonable doubt, that you must convict, then if there really is no real doubt in your mind about A, B and C, then you must convict. Don't let the lack of enforcement of this requirement make you think that it is perfectly legal. It's not.

2. Ohio has not accepted so-called open file discovery. I say "so-called" because the proposal is not truly open file. Frankly, with the Supreme Court of Ohio's recent decision on the ethical responsibility to disclose beyond what is required by R. 16 (held 6-1: there isn't any) I consider this a dead issue. There is no Constitutional right to any discovery beyond known, exculpatory evidence that is material to the case. Ohio requires in addition to that any evidence the state intends to use in its case in chief. This catagorically does not include witness statements or police reports. The reason for this is simple. A trial is a search for the truth. The defendant is the one person in a criminal case who absolutely knows what the truth is. While he is entitled to rely on his own knowledge for a defense, he is not entitled to made one up based on what other witnesses have said. As it is, the defendant invariably testifies last to gain the benefit of what all the other witnesses say. If the defendant did the crime, he ought to be screwed at trial. Again, this is about finding the truth, not giving guilty defendants a fair chance at acquittal.

And of course there are the accusations from the defense bar. While I can appreciate the frustration with hearing your client's testimony contradicted by his own earlier statements or by other witnesses on cross examination, that really has nothing to do with finding the truth. If discovery reform becomes law, you folks are going to stop saying the State is withholding Brady material to accusing us of not giving you a complete file. There has never been a miscarriage of justice caused by compliance with Crim.R. 16. Those few prosecutors who flaunt it will omit things from the file under a lew law. And they will continue to be reversed and disciplined.

3. I highly doubt that police informants are going to give up a chance at a reduced sentence just to make a principled stand. Let's be clear on what we are talking about. If someone is a factual witness, including witnesses to remarks by the defendant while sharing a jail cell, that person generally is not compensated for his testimony. Why? There is too great of a chance of suborning perjury. OTOH, people facing low drug charges are given reduced sentences for cooperating with police. Sometimes they pay people who are familiar with drug culture but are not facing charges. The reason is simple. Dealers deal to those they know. They wear a wire for evidence and safety purposes. That evidence is more reliable that a by-chance eyewitness, because it is recorded. Drug dealers are dangerous people and are a hazard to the public around them. I frankly have no sympathy for people who make a living by selling horribly dangerous drugs (not really talking about grass here) to, well, stupid people.

[groovedaddy]

3. I guess whomever made this wikipedia entry doesn't entirely agree with you about nullification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[Deep13]

5. Is that a question?

No, he or she doesn't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. The defendant is the one person in a criminal case who absolutely knows what the truth is.

Assuming he is guilty, of course.

If he is falsely accused he is the LAST to know what the truth is, beyond the fact that he is innocent.

And not to pop your bubbles or anything, but for a great many prosecutors the process in NOT a search for truth, but a quest for a conviction, and damn the truth.

[Deep13]

6. "...but a quest for a conviction, and damn the truth."

How do you know? I haven't seen that. The fact is if we have good reason to think someone is innocent, we don't indict.

If the defendant is innocent then he absolutely knows he's innocent. The point of a trial is to find the truth about the defendant, not to solve the crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. You've never heard of prosecutorial misconduct?

Threatening kids with the death penalty so they will plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than risk a jury trial which the DA assures them will end up with them strapped to a gurney? Hiding exculpatory evidence? Tampering with witnesses?

I know because I see it in the papers regularly. I see it in 30% of Illinois death row inmates being found to be innocent.

I certainly don't claim that it is de riguer for prosecutors, but it is common enough to be a BIG problem, particularly those who use the DA's office as a springboard for higher political ambitions. You get a reputation by getting convictions - and some (not all) aren't too picky about HOW they get those convictions.

Of course, you know that already but choose to not acknowledge it, just as you didn't acknowledge that I said "some" prosecutors.