If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Plain Dealer)   How many complaints filed against a judge does it take to get them removed from hearing criminal cases? Over 100, plus a refusal from the Public Defenders office to appear in their courtroom, and an order to undergo psychiatric evaluation   (cleveland.com) divider line 67
    More: Scary, civil cases, criminal laws, public defenders, psychological evaluation, Supreme Court of Ohio, dockets  
•       •       •

10193 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2014 at 9:44 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-15 07:38:42 PM  
Actually, 437.  An additional 100 AFTER the first 337 lead to the first investigation.
 
2014-03-15 07:54:32 PM  
Why the hell hasn't Pierce County, Washington done this with Bev Grant?

/for those who don't know, she's the one who had the entire courtroom stand up and yell, "Go Seahawks!".  Just before the sentence was handed down.  On a murder trial.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-15 09:41:34 PM  
It's hard to get a bad magistrate suspended in Massachusetts because the job is a prize politcal patronage award. It goes to people with the right connections or campaign donations. Because their actions are not legal precedent -- they don't preside over courts of record -- they are considered mostly harmless by the legal community.
 
2014-03-15 09:52:11 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Why the hell hasn't Pierce County, Washington done this with Bev Grant?

/for those who don't know, she's the one who had the entire courtroom stand up and yell, "Go Seahawks!".  Just before the sentence was handed down.  On a murder trial.


wait, what
 
2014-03-15 09:54:46 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Why the hell hasn't Pierce County, Washington done this with Bev Grant?

/for those who don't know, she's the one who had the entire courtroom stand up and yell, "Go Seahawks!".  Just before the sentence was handed down.  On a murder trial.


fark me running downhill
 
2014-03-15 10:01:28 PM  
gott damn what a baitch this judge is.
 
2014-03-15 10:03:32 PM  
Whose bright idea was it to make judges virtually untouchable for their actions? Almost as bad as trying to fire someone in a union.
 
2014-03-15 10:08:26 PM  

astouffer: Whose bright idea was it to make judges virtually untouchable for their actions? Almost as bad as trying to fire someone in a union.


When society actually had a layer dedicated to "higher standards", police and judges were self-corrected out of the pool (and society behaved along with it).  When that layer became "self-protecting" it started to fail from the top down - politicians, appointees (i.e. politically connected/contributors), police, all the way down to the people on the street who don't feel any connection to justice or "behaving" since they see no evidence or enforcement above them.
 
2014-03-15 10:10:35 PM  

astouffer: Whose bright idea was it to make judges virtually untouchable for their actions?


The same people who thought isolating the judiciary from the political system might be desirable -- imagine how farked we'd be if congress ran the courts.
 
2014-03-15 10:23:04 PM  
This woman is CRAZY.

Link to full report on this page: http://www.19actionnews.com/story/23727617/report-cleveland-municipal - judge-recommended-psych-examination

When deputies will quit a personal bailiff's job that pays twice as much as regular court duties because the judge is a crazy twatwaffle...things have got to be bad.
 
2014-03-15 10:29:29 PM  
 
2014-03-15 10:30:32 PM  
You think bad cops and bad teachers are hard to get rid of?
Try to get rid of a bad judge.
It's damn near impossible.
And she's still hearing cases, just not criminal.
 
2014-03-15 10:35:01 PM  
Black Juddge Judy
 
2014-03-15 10:38:52 PM  
GO SEAHAWKS!!

You just can't make that stuff up.
 
2014-03-15 10:51:23 PM  
I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.
 
2014-03-15 10:51:43 PM  

alacrify: Actually, 437.  An additional 100 AFTER the first 337 lead to the first investigation.


Was she sucking the dick of the administrative judge? Clearly he has the power to stop her hearing cases, so what the fark took him so long?

The cynical part of me is going to say even judges close ranks and cover for each other, which is awesome *eye roll*

The slightly less cynical part of me is going to say that there are no real rules and procedures in place for dealing with shiatty/crazy judges, because they are likely a pretty rare phenomenon, and no matter wanted to put their neck out to reign this psycho in until it was clear to even the most drooling trainable citizen that she was a loon.
 
2014-03-15 10:53:19 PM  
She must be completely bonkers because otherwise she'd be completely untouchable, she's the daughter of Louis Stokes (the civil rights leader and congressman) which makes her all but royalty in Cleveland.
 
2014-03-15 10:55:53 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.


I won't complain, but I will point out that your system won't work as long as people feel they don't have to serve on juries and opt out of jury duty for whatever reason they feel is compelling at the moment.

I'll also point out that this will slow down the court system even more than it already is--the whole point of plea deals is to obviate the need for a jury in the first place. If a jury has to approve a plea deal, then you might just as well have a trial, since you've empaneled, sworn and presented all the evidence to a jury.
 
2014-03-15 10:57:08 PM  
lol at the attorneys section of the complaint. The phrase "shut your mouth" keeps popping up. Unfortunately no instances of "jabroni" or "If you smell what I'm cookin"
 
2014-03-15 11:12:00 PM  

Gyrfalcon: WhoopAssWayne: I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.

I won't complain, but I will point out that your system won't work as long as people feel they don't have to serve on juries and opt out of jury duty for whatever reason they feel is compelling at the moment.

I'll also point out that this will slow down the court system even more than it already is--the whole point of plea deals is to obviate the need for a jury in the first place. If a jury has to approve a plea deal, then you might just as well have a trial, since you've empaneled, sworn and presented all the evidence to a jury.


I would just make it so that prosecutors are on the hook somehow for the cases they prosecute.This way, they won't rush to convict, because if they convict the wrong person they could face up to the death penalty.

Also judges should be a little easier to boot. 400 complaints is ridiculous.
 
2014-03-15 11:16:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: I won't complain, but I will point out that your system won't work as long as people feel they don't have to serve on juries and opt out of jury duty for whatever reason they feel is compelling at the moment.


First off, thank you for the thoughtful response.

To your first point, I believe that people who want to get out of jury duty actually do get out, mostly  If you're suggesting that juries should have more domain expertise and are selected for that expertise, then I agree.

Gyrfalcon: If a jury has to approve a plea deal, then you might just as well have a trial, since you've empaneled, sworn and presented all the evidence to a jury.

Could be the sitting Grand Jury, but yes, I think it should be an empaneled jury just for that case.

The problem that solves is, as we have across this nation, are corrupt DAs (notches in their belt, not justice done,) Way, way overcharging people to get them to plea instead of exercising their U.S. Constitutional right to a fair trail. They look at that time - in horrible conditions - and *waive* their right to a fair trial and take the deal.

It's bullsh*t and completely unconstitutional in my view. Those deals have *zero* credibility unless approved by a Grand Jury, or some kind of public review.
 
2014-03-15 11:26:05 PM  

doglover: I would just make it so that prosecutors are on the hook somehow for the cases they prosecute.This way, they won't rush to convict, because if they convict the wrong person they could face up to the death penalty.


I am in complete agreement that prosecutors, and other court officials, should have some very real accountability for their mistakes. And as far as prosecutors, hey we need them. But we need to measure them, not on a blind count of convictions, but how often they were able to ensure that justice was served. And that particular metric, justice served, should be measured by the local sitting Grand Jury. If there's going to be a scorecard, as awful as that sounds, let the sitting Grand Jury fill it out.
 
2014-03-15 11:27:30 PM  
Takeaway message: As a judge, you can be completely bugfark crazy abusive to the lawyers and poor farkers who have to appear in front of you, but if you're routinely farking over court employees and farking up the budget it's likely to bite you sooner or later.
 
2014-03-15 11:34:49 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.


Liberals have the problem with this? Plea bargaining is the tool of the powerful. You have the defender of the public you better take the deal or you will do the off pissing of TWO people with the same boss.
 
2014-03-15 11:35:55 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Takeaway message: As a judge, you can be completely bugfark crazy abusive to the lawyers and poor farkers who have to appear in front of you, but if you're routinely farking over court employees and farking up the budget it's likely to bite you sooner or later.


Zero accountability, over a number of years or decades, leads to a sort of power-tripping narcissism that's difficult to understand for people who actually work for a living and contribute to society. But yes, as you say, don't ever f*** with them or smart off - just don't.
 
2014-03-15 11:43:58 PM  

Antidamascus: Benevolent Misanthrope: Why the hell hasn't Pierce County, Washington done this with Bev Grant?

/for those who don't know, she's the one who had the entire courtroom stand up and yell, "Go Seahawks!".  Just before the sentence was handed down.  On a murder trial.

wait, what


Yeah, WTF?

If I had been in that courtroom, I would have refused to do so and she could have held me in contempt of court if she wanted.  No, I will not stand and praise some corporate interest.

Interestingly enough, in Korea, baseball teams are not known by the city they play in.  There are teams like the Kia Tigers and the LG Twins and the Samsung Lions.  At least it's more honest than what we have in the US.

Either way, she's asking the people who are in her court to suck corporate dick.  She should be beaten with smart phones wrapped up in socks
 
2014-03-15 11:44:12 PM  
Complaint is here:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/807140/stokes-10-16-13.pdf

I gave up on reading it - it's pretty repetitive:

1 - Judge is a power abusing PITA
2 - Judge is a power abusing PITA
3 - Judge is a power abusing PITA
4 - Judge is a power abusing PITA
5 - Judge is a power abusing PITA
6 - Judge is a power abusing PITA
. . .
 
2014-03-15 11:47:20 PM  

doglover: Gyrfalcon: WhoopAssWayne: I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.

I won't complain, but I will point out that your system won't work as long as people feel they don't have to serve on juries and opt out of jury duty for whatever reason they feel is compelling at the moment.

I'll also point out that this will slow down the court system even more than it already is--the whole point of plea deals is to obviate the need for a jury in the first place. If a jury has to approve a plea deal, then you might just as well have a trial, since you've empaneled, sworn and presented all the evidence to a jury.

I would just make it so that prosecutors are on the hook somehow for the cases they prosecute.This way, they won't rush to convict, because if they convict the wrong person they could face up to the death penalty.

Also judges should be a little easier to boot. 400 complaints is ridiculous.


Prosecutors don't convict anyone.  They make offers that may be accepted or go to trial and present evidence and a jury convicts the defendant (unless it is a bench trial but the defendant has to waive the jury trial to get there). Now if there is misconduct in presenting the evidence, sure, there should be consequences, but ultimately the jury decides the matter and has the responsibility to convict.  Are you going to hold a jury responsible for convicting the wrong person since, they are ultimately responsible for believing the testimony and evidence in order to convict?  If you do that, good luck finding anyone to serve on a jury.
 
2014-03-15 11:53:29 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Gyrfalcon: I won't complain, but I will point out that your system won't work as long as people feel they don't have to serve on juries and opt out of jury duty for whatever reason they feel is compelling at the moment.

First off, thank you for the thoughtful response.

To your first point, I believe that people who want to get out of jury duty actually do get out, mostly  If you're suggesting that juries should have more domain expertise and are selected for that expertise, then I agree.

Gyrfalcon: If a jury has to approve a plea deal, then you might just as well have a trial, since you've empaneled, sworn and presented all the evidence to a jury.

Could be the sitting Grand Jury, but yes, I think it should be an empaneled jury just for that case.

The problem that solves is, as we have across this nation, are corrupt DAs (notches in their belt, not justice done,) Way, way overcharging people to get them to plea instead of exercising their U.S. Constitutional right to a fair trail. They look at that time - in horrible conditions - and *waive* their right to a fair trial and take the deal.

It's bullsh*t and completely unconstitutional in my view. Those deals have *zero* credibility unless approved by a Grand Jury, or some kind of public review.


For a jury to make an informed decision, they'd have to learn the facts of the case.  Someone has to present those, and facts can be murky; that means that we need people to present the case for each side.  Sounds a lot like a traditional trial.  I'm having difficulty coming up with a system where a jury could make these calls without something like this.

Maybe the answer to your issues is to overhaul the entire process.  I'm not convinced your issues are as big of a problem as you say, or require this kind of oversight.  If a lawyer is advising you when you make the deal, there is someone who can analyze whether or not a trial is advisable, especially considering that you can tell the lawyer what actually happened.  Are lawyers currently required for this?  If not, they should be, to the point where you can't waive it.
 
2014-03-15 11:57:34 PM  

Aestatis: WhoopAssWayne: Gyrfalcon: I won't complain, but I will point out that your system won't work as long as people feel they don't have to serve on juries and opt out of jury duty for whatever reason they feel is compelling at the moment.

First off, thank you for the thoughtful response.

To your first point, I believe that people who want to get out of jury duty actually do get out, mostly  If you're suggesting that juries should have more domain expertise and are selected for that expertise, then I agree.

Gyrfalcon: If a jury has to approve a plea deal, then you might just as well have a trial, since you've empaneled, sworn and presented all the evidence to a jury.

Could be the sitting Grand Jury, but yes, I think it should be an empaneled jury just for that case.

The problem that solves is, as we have across this nation, are corrupt DAs (notches in their belt, not justice done,) Way, way overcharging people to get them to plea instead of exercising their U.S. Constitutional right to a fair trail. They look at that time - in horrible conditions - and *waive* their right to a fair trial and take the deal.

It's bullsh*t and completely unconstitutional in my view. Those deals have *zero* credibility unless approved by a Grand Jury, or some kind of public review.

For a jury to make an informed decision, they'd have to learn the facts of the case.  Someone has to present those, and facts can be murky; that means that we need people to present the case for each side.  Sounds a lot like a traditional trial.  I'm having difficulty coming up with a system where a jury could make these calls without something like this.

Maybe the answer to your issues is to overhaul the entire process.  I'm not convinced your issues are as big of a problem as you say, or require this kind of oversight.  If a lawyer is advising you when you make the deal, there is someone who can analyze whether or not a trial is advisable, especially considering that you can tell the lawyer what actually ...


Not to mention that you have to temper such ideas in the light of how juries have been used for evil, e.g. the all-white juries of the Jim Crow South.
 
2014-03-15 11:57:57 PM  

Daedalus27: Prosecutors don't convict anyone.


They convict 90% of people in jail today.

It's called a plea deal. Look it up.
 
2014-03-16 12:00:00 AM  
Here's an older article that better explains what is happening.
 
2014-03-16 12:00:06 AM  

Daedalus27: Prosecutors don't convict anyone.


Bullsh*t.

Daedalus27: They make offers that may be accepted or go to trial


They vastly overcharge every defendant, with many false charges, such that giving up a basic human right to a fair trial is required. This makes our 6th Amendment right to a fair trial useless. Overcharging overturns the 6th.

We must fight it through the jury system. Demand every trial be reviewed or served by a jury. If it's not legit, start fining court officials - fine them for money, suspensions, and disbarment. No jury, no real conviction.
 
2014-03-16 12:00:32 AM  
This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. It's just one party pretending to be two parties, and it will resist the will of the people to its utmost ability.
 
2014-03-16 12:04:23 AM  

DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. It's just one party pretending to be two parties, and it will resist the will of the people to its utmost ability.


Dr Pain brings the truth.

//what can you tell me about abnormal liver enzymes after a blood test?
 
2014-03-16 12:27:02 AM  

DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. It's just one party pretending to be two parties, and it will resist the will of the people to its utmost ability.


Wow, congratulations on just derping it up with generic talking points with no bearing on the situation at hand!

WhoopAssWayne: DrPainMD: This is what happens when you vote for Democrats or Republicans. It's just one party pretending to be two parties, and it will resist the will of the people to its utmost ability.

Dr Pain brings the truth.

//what can you tell me about abnormal liver enzymes after a blood test?


I always find it fascinating when people purposely use the word "truth," instead of "facts."
 
2014-03-16 12:31:47 AM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Why the hell hasn't Pierce County, Washington done this with Bev Grant?

/for those who don't know, she's the one who had the entire courtroom stand up and yell, "Go Seahawks!".  Just before the sentence was handed down.  On a murder trial.


Hometown pride.

/what a stupid twunt
 
2014-03-16 12:36:05 AM  
We had a local judge run down a homeless guy on a bike. Now obviously being on a bike made him disposable. And I agree.
But the Judge kept judging despite age and memory diseases. And money contributed to say its okay to run over asshole bicyclists.
Which is normal true. fark bicyclists.
 
2014-03-16 12:44:11 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.


A point-by-point rebuttal:

1. Then what good would it be to offer a plea deal, wherein the basic idea is to remove the need for a jury in the first place?
2. Ridiculous on its face, as the moment a juror gets this in their head, the power will be abused. Example: Judge needs to sequester jury, but Juror #2 has a big golf weekend--suddenly judge is sanctioned. (And if there was justification for the sequestration, then the jury is poisoned, which leads to an appeal, which then leads to a new trial, and the whole mess starts over again and trial costs double.)
3. No. First of all, juries by and large are incapable of understanding forensic evidence (hate to break it to people, but a lot of stuff on CSI doesn't happen like on TV). Second, juries are there to judge the facts and evidence presented, not to investigate for themselves.

Your system is actually in and of itself horribly unbalanced and dangerously close to unconstitutional. It seems that unless there is actual videographic evidence of the crime being committed, a jury must acquit the defendant no matter what.

Also: whenever someone thinks it necessary to state "US Constitution," I have no other reaction but to laugh. Your system wouldn't work, is dangerously costs prohibitive, and would never survive a challenge by even a halfway-decent appellant.
 
2014-03-16 12:47:45 AM  

doglover: Daedalus27: Prosecutors don't convict anyone.

They convict 90% of people in jail today.

It's called a plea deal. Look it up.


The defendant's accept the offer, they don't have to. It is always the defendant's choice.  Defendant's can always go forward with a trial but usually it isn't in their interests given they are guilty and the plea deal will give them less time.  The prosecutors do get the conviction, but the defendant convicted himself because it was the best choice in a bad situation.

WhoopAssWayne: Daedalus27: Prosecutors don't convict anyone.

Bullsh*t.

Daedalus27: They make offers that may be accepted or go to trial

They vastly overcharge every defendant, with many false charges, such that giving up a basic human right to a fair trial is required. This makes our 6th Amendment right to a fair trial useless. Overcharging overturns the 6th.

We must fight it through the jury system. Demand every trial be reviewed or served by a jury. If it's not legit, start fining court officials - fine them for money, suspensions, and disbarment. No jury, no real conviction.


Wow, way to make broad assertions backed by nothing but your own strong opinion.  If anything prosecutors mostly undercharge given many offenses criminals commit are not worth the time and effort to prove given the sentence available.  For instance few prosecutors bother with possession of drug paraphernalia when they have a possession of a controlled substance charge.  Why?  Because the controlled substance is a felony in most cases and the drug paraphernalia charge is a misdemeanor so proving it doesn't add anything unless you use that to get the plea deal and dismiss the controlled substance.  Or for receiving stolen property most prosecutors wouldn't charge the 20 or 30 pieces that may be found, but keep it to a couple easy ones as proving up all 30 simply wastes time as in many jurisdictions it may not add anything to a sentence.

If you have a problem with what prosecutors are doing, who is to blame?  The prosecutors who are implementing the shiat sandwich they are given or the legislature for criminalizing such behavior and the sentencing structure that they approve?  Most of your criticism seems to be pointed at the prosecutors when the real issue you have is criminalizing behavior in the first place or the way the sentencing structure works in building long sentences convicted defendants receive.  You want to make drug crimes receive lower terms in prison (if at all) that isn't the prosecutors call, it is the legislature that dictates the amounts and use being a felony or a misdemeanor or a infraction.  If you don't believe in a 3 strikes type law, who implemented that, the prosecutors or the legislature (or proposition voted on by the citizens).  If you want fewer people in jail/prison for various things, it isn't the prosecutor who is the enemy, it is the criminalization of behaviors in the first place.  If there are not laws on the books criminalizing the behavior then prosecutors have nothing to charge a defendant with.

Can prosecutors do bad things and pervert the system of justice?  Absolutely.  There are some horrible people out there with bad motives and are using the job not because they want to do it, but as a stepping stone to something else.  However painting such a broad brush and demonizing individuals working to maintain societies rules because of your own biases and misconceptions or because there are some bad people out there isn't exactly fair or helpful.  If you want to tackle criminal justice reform, prosecutors certainly are a place to look at some point, but I would strongly suggest focusing your efforts elsewhere for more bang for the buck such as providing more resources to criminal defendants and legislation for sentencing reform and criminal statutes.

And if you don't like the plea bargain system, you are demanding billions in more resources for courts, public defender offices, as well as district attorneys.  One of the reasons plea bargains are so useful is because the system is so underfunded it cannot function anymore without offering huge discounts on sentences to promote their use.  We simply do not have enough resources to have trials on anything and the outcomes probably would not be much different. Your railing on the abuses of prosecutors overlooks the fact that most defendants are stone, cold, caught red handed with 100% proof of guilt so that they want a plea deal to minimize the consequences. If you want this ideal system of 100% trials your going to need a metric shiat ton of more lawyers, judges, and jurors (are you prepared for jury duty every month or two with no exemptions) to run things night and day 365 days a year. It would be great for all those unemployed lawyers out there, but in terms of wise use of limited funds I don't think the taxpayers would appreciate it. I don't think you realize how many crimes are already overlooked due to prosecutorial discretion and how many offenses are dismissed not because the case isn't there but because the time and effort involved simply don't make sense with much more serious offenses already being short changed.

I certainly agree the criminal justice system needs an overhaul.  But the reforms have to be realistic and actually practical.  Idealistic statements about trials for everyone are pipe dreams unless you want to dedicate an increasingly large portion of tax dollars and personal time into the justice system.  Decriminalizing many behaviors, sentencing reform to increase and decrease criminal acts, non-custodial punishments for a larger range of behaviors,  more resources to public defenders, judges, and prosecutors so they can give more cases the time and effort they deserve would be more helpful than an unreasonable desire to eliminate the plea bargain.
 
2014-03-16 12:51:43 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: Daedalus27: Prosecutors don't convict anyone.

Bullsh*t.

Daedalus27: They make offers that may be accepted or go to trial

They vastly overcharge every defendant, with many false charges, such that giving up a basic human right to a fair trial is required. This makes our 6th Amendment right to a fair trial useless. Overcharging overturns the 6th.

We must fight it through the jury system. Demand every trial be reviewed or served by a jury. If it's not legit, start fining court officials - fine them for money, suspensions, and disbarment. No jury, no real conviction.


From your comments thus far, I gather you have no comprehension as to how the court system actually works. Grand juries, for example, do nothing but determine whether the chargesagainst a potential defendant are worthy of an actual indictment.

Prosecutors may submit a number of lesser-included offenses in charging a defendant, but they bear no relevance in a plea bargain, where a deal hinges on the defendant accepting the top count--the biggest charge, or at least something close to it--in exchange for a shorter sentence. And plea bargains do not make the Sixth Amendment--it isn't the system forcing a defendant to accept a deal, but offering the defendant a way to reduce a potential sentence.

Please, please stop. Your ignorance and bias are showing.
 
2014-03-16 01:02:32 AM  

astouffer: Whose bright idea was it to make judges virtually untouchable for their actions? Almost as bad as trying to fire someone in a union.


Uh, when you think about it, there's actually a lot of very good reasons for judges to be relatively untouchable politically.
It's one of those unfortunate things about reality. It sucks, but any other way of doing it is worse.
 
2014-03-16 01:06:43 AM  
We got Ping again.
 
2014-03-16 01:19:35 AM  

Daedalus27: The prosecutors who are implementing the shiat sandwich they are given or the legislature for criminalizing such behavior and the sentencing structure that they approve?


The prosecutors.

You can give a good man a access to a bank vault and he will not tip all the money into his pockets and scarper. You can give a good man a badge and gun and set him on patrol around the local school yard and he will not immediately shoot the first kid to jaywalk. You can give a good man a giant pile of laws that are retarded and he will not choose to prosecute people with them with unethical tactics and shady plea deals.

That's why we have three branches of government. It's up to the judicial side to be check and balance to the other two. This is not what they're currently up to. Instead they're exploiting the system to fill up the prisons because they can. So we need to change the rules on them to prevent it.
 
2014-03-16 01:29:39 AM  

doglover: Daedalus27: The prosecutors who are implementing the shiat sandwich they are given or the legislature for criminalizing such behavior and the sentencing structure that they approve?

The prosecutors.

You can give a good man a access to a bank vault and he will not tip all the money into his pockets and scarper. You can give a good man a badge and gun and set him on patrol around the local school yard and he will not immediately shoot the first kid to jaywalk. You can give a good man a giant pile of laws that are retarded and he will not choose to prosecute people with them with unethical tactics and shady plea deals.

That's why we have three branches of government. It's up to the judicial side to be check and balance to the other two. This is not what they're currently up to. Instead they're exploiting the system to fill up the prisons because they can. So we need to change the rules on them to prevent it.


Seriously, you pull these assertions out of your butt as facts without any supporting evidence or argument.  Unethical tactics?  Shady plea deals?  Where is the evidence?  Hell your not even providing examples. You just throw it out there as a fact as we should all nod our head, pick up torches, and burn down the nearest DA's office.  There are thousands of counties/parishes/burroughs in the USA each with a prosecutors office on top of the numerous cities that have city attorneys handle misdemeanor matters.  Of course there are some working who engaging in questionable behavior and decisions but that doesn't mean that they are primarily responsible for problems in the criminal justice system or that their bad behaviors are actually causing any harm. If your not going to critically think about the issue you seem interested in, you aren't going to convince anyone but the usual crowd of cop haters and bleeding hearts who are grounded in a fantasy world.
 
2014-03-16 01:33:44 AM  

Daedalus27: Seriously, you pull these assertions out of your butt as facts without any supporting evidence or argument.


That's why they're called assertions.

Anyway, my job is not to educate you. Do your own homework.
 
2014-03-16 01:50:48 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: I'll be crucified by the big government liberals here, but:

1) All plea deals must be approved by a jury
2) Juries must be able to fine and suspend court officials as punishment (judges, DAs, LEA)
3) Juries should have full subpoena power, and the ability to demand independent results for forensic evidence, as well as the power to appoint independent prosecutors.

Until this type of system exists, jurors must reject all state claims - ALL OF THEM - without smoking gun evidence, and demand acquittal or hung jury.


No, you'll get butt-reamed by the small-government conservatives and toilet papers.  Plea deals approved by a jury?  Are you shiatting me?  WHAT "jury?"  As is apparent from years of Fark stories about the ways people try to get out of even real jury duty, like, when they can fry people 'n stuff, you won't be able to get anybody to serve.

Grand juries already have "full subpoena power."  They sometimes use it, but mostly they just stamp rubbers... uh.... rubber-stamp whatever the prosecutor wants.

As far as #2, I won't even talk about it, because I'm low on asthma inhalers and I'll go into a full-on pulmonary arrest from laughing at that one.
 
2014-03-16 01:52:20 AM  
Cleveland?  I guess the "blond haired blue eyed devils" argument doesn't work as well as it does in Chicago, Detroit, NYC and DC.

What a shame!
 
2014-03-16 01:53:17 AM  

doglover: Daedalus27: Seriously, you pull these assertions out of your butt as facts without any supporting evidence or argument.

That's why they're called assertions.

Anyway, my job is not to educate you. Do your own homework.


Sorry Daedalus27 but as an Unbiased Third PartyTM I have to side with doglover on this one - the plea bargain controversy has been a well established fact for a long time, sort of like, y know, the whole evolution controversy. You are a bit behind the curve on the standing issues and yeah, you may need to do your own homework, as has been suggested. It happens to the best of us. The fact that many (not all) prosecutors in many (not all) jurisdictions are evaluated on their conviction rate should have an affect on the charging decisions of prosecutors is so obvious that your mental defiance to such an idea suggests a naive/ignorantly fearful view of human motivation. So yes, even though the people may be working in a system that directs their behavior consciously or unconsciously, their actions can have a negative effect and, yes, they ARE responsible for that.

/firstbump to doglover, I knew I had you highlighted for a reason
 
2014-03-16 01:55:22 AM  
Two major problems: Judges who think I AM THE LAW (no, y'all are not, any more than NFL refs are a football).

Prosecutors whose job performance is never, ever, EVER rated on getting to the truth of the matter... their performance is rated on CONVICTIONS.  Their job isn't "justice," it's "winning."

Ask yourself this:  how many times have you heard of people's cases getting tossed on appeal, sometimes dismissed with prejudice by much, MUCH higher courts, and the local news assholes always interview the original trial prosecutor, who invariably says, "fark them, Joe Blow is guilty as shiat?"

I can't name even three times they DIDN'T do that.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report