
How the Drug War Disappeared the Jury Trial - jseliger
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-the-drug-war-disappeared-the-jury-trial/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+%7C+OTB%29
======
rayiner
I can't stress enough how damaging the drug war has been to our justice
system. It's not only unfair to the (mostly poor minorities) that get caught
up in the war, but is unfair to everyone else that receives slower service
from the federal court system as a result of dockets clogged with drug cases.

That said, the lede of the article is dumb. The article complains about the
drug war and plea bargaining, but Ronald Thompson's plight is not the result
of those things, but rather of an overzealous gun control law:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life).
Under this Florida law, the fact that Thompson fired a gun during what was
otherwise a felony assault resulted in a mandatory 20 year sentence.

Indeed, the fact that many people who would otherwise oppose the drug war
support gun control laws like this shows a deeper problem with American
society than just the drug war. Whether we're calling for longer prison
sentences for bankers or people convicted of gun crimes, we just love putting
people in prison.

~~~
gamacodre
> we just love putting people in prison.

I think this is happening because of a general perception that too many people
are "getting away" with breaking the law. It doesn't seem to matter that we're
criminalizing everyday life and that many of the folks who actually deserve
these penalties are untouchable due to money or politics, the sense of
injustice is enough to make you want to just clamp down on everything. This
means that for the few people that can exercise influence over the police and
judicial system, the upside (votes, funding, whatever) from damaging it
further far outweighs the miniscule chance that they themselves will get
caught up in its workings.

It seems like it's caught in a death spiral. And it bothers me tremendously
that, as a decent guy, I'm actively afraid of our judicial system.

~~~
rayiner
There's no reason to turn everything into some "untouchable due to money or
politics" angle. There is a simple reason why people perceive that harsh
response to crime is necessary: [http://www.volokh.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.j...](http://www.volokh.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.jpg). The violent crime rate in the U.S.
peaked in the early 1990's at about five times the per capita rate in 1960.
Florida's law was passed in 1997 or so.

~~~
gamacodre
I'd agree that that "untouchable" idea is perhaps too easy to reach for, but I
really do think it's germane to this particular problem. You seem to be well-
informed on the subject, perhaps you could comment on this:

It seems to me that for a reasonably well-off person, being incorrectly or
even maliciously accused of [random crime] may be inconvenient but you can
probably throw comparatively small amounts of money at it until it goes away
in the natural course of things (unless you're particularly unlucky). For a
regular wage-earner with minimal savings, that same scenario can be a
nightmare of missed time at work and incompetent or uninterested
representation. If there's any truth to the accusation, the first case
probably ends worse for the subject and the second case ends catastrophically.

This, in my mind, speaks directly to why even well-meaning lawmakers would be
willing to contribute to the systemic damage that's been happening: their
"sense" of how the legal system works is strongly skewed by the experiences
they and their friends and family have had. I've had friends in both
situations and the contrast was really stark.

On the massive increase in violent crime 1960-199x, wasn't that actually
heavily localized in urban areas? We moved near Oakland, CA in the early 90's
and it was completely unlike the various areas we had lived in previously.
Though I suppose that wouldn't change the effect it had on general
perceptions, with broadcast and then cable news delivering the worst of the
nation every night.

------
will_brown
I thought this was an interesting article, but the following jumped out at me:

>Ronald Thompson’s case, and so many others, reveals that prosecutors don’t
think that twenty-year sentences for shooting into the ground constitute
justice. _Why else would the plea bargain stay on the table._

The reason (in a majority of cases) plea bargains stay on the table is not
because the prosecutors don't think the mandatory minimums constitute justice,
rather the prosecutors do not have an incentive or otherwise want to go to
trial. Therefore, they dangle the carrot and stick in front of the defendant
(e.g. in this case, take 3 years or roll the dice and if convicted serve the
minimum 20). So why don't prosecutors want to go to trial? Because the have
extremely large case loads, they could not possibly take them all to trial,
but to even take one to trial requires exponentially more work than getting
the defendant to accept a plea. Additionally, if a prosecutor does all the
extra work required with going to trial (win or lose) they do not get paid for
all the extra work.

~~~
elipsey
I gather that in some legal systems, the German system for example, mandatory
prosecution of every crime is required because of this problem.

It seems worthwhile to ask what a good incentive for prosecutors would look
like. For example, an incentive that rewards winning a trial more strongly
than excepting a plea.

~~~
bradleyjg
From friends in state prosecutors offices in a couple of states, I understand
that there is a professional incentive to try cases on a fairly regular basis.
Even though the office as a whole benefits from plea bargains, it's trial work
that is apparently most respected and taken into consideration for promotions
and the like.

I personally find the German system preferable, I think there is something
very sick about a system that has so many cases it is in danger of collapsing
under its own weight. Rather than striving for efficiency short cuts, like
rampent plea bargaining accomplished via the lever of over harsh trial
sentences, we should step back and figure out why there are so many alleged
criminals to begin with.

~~~
socialist_coder
I'm an American living in Germany now but I have no clue what the German
system is. Can you enlighten me or share a link that explains it well?

~~~
bradleyjg
This is the article everyone in (US) law school reads about it:
[http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?artic...](http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1532&context=fss_papers)

but it looks like things are changing:

[http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol34/iss2/5/](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol34/iss2/5/)

------
ihnorton
_For example, when United States Army veteran Ronald Thompson fired two
warning shots into the ground, he intended to scare off his friend’s grandson,
who was attempting to enter her home after she denied him entry. He never
imagined his actions would leave him facing decades in prison._

So, `stand your ground` only kicks in when the purported assailant is shot
dead? Words fail.

~~~
InclinedPlane
"Stand your ground" isn't magic, it's a legal defense like any other.
Everything hinges on what the jury finds, and in this case it seems as though
the prosecutor was persuasive.

Also, if you mean to draw a comparison to the Trayvon Martin case, "stand your
ground" wasn't relevant to that case.

~~~
wavefunction
The Stand Your Ground laws are highly relevant to the Trayvon Martin case,
since they provided cover for local law enforcement to initially decide they
wouldn't be pursuing any charges against Zimmerman. Which led to the outrage
and the public court trial.

------
unabridged
The most important check on prosecutorial power is the grand jury, where they
decide whether or not a prosecutor can even bring charges against someone. But
in the last 100 years the power of the grand jury has been dissolved entirely
and now merely exists as a tool of the prosecutor.

------
higherpurpose
This is why bad laws must be fought hard _before_ they get passed. Because
after, people forget about them, since "it doesn't directly apply to them",
and they remain as laws for _decades_ , ruining many people's lives.

I also find the American system of _adding up_ charges incredibly stupid, and
extremely easy to abuse by prosecutors, way more than any positives it may
have (although I think he has none, especially with such high minimum
sentences for most crimes).

------
llamataboot
Incidentally, this is one reason why some activists insist on jury trials for
even the smallest forms of civil disobedience. We have created a system that
/counts on/ the fact that most cases will never go to trial. Insisting on a
trial is one way to use significant resources of that system to make a
political point.

------
tethis
We just had a ruling a couple months ago, up here in Canada, that a 3-year
mandatory minimum sentence involve possession of a loaded firearm was
unconstitutional as it is considered "cruel and unusual punishment".

Is such a challenge possible in the USA?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Nope.

The US justice system is simply insane, and I've no idea what will bring it
back.

~~~
davorak
> Nope.

I am missing a legal nuance? It seems like a challenge along these lines is
possible but unlikely to go very far.

~~~
nknighthb
The Supreme Court has upheld three strikes laws that put people in prison for
life for low-value non-violent thefts. No number of years for a crime, no
matter how minor, seems to be too much. The only challenges that succeed are
challenges to unusual applications of the death penalty.

------
woah
What kind of evil motivates these prosecutors? These people are a danger to
the community.

~~~
midas007
Stats, for one. And possibly getting re-elected.

------
KaiserPro
I know this is pernicious, but I'd suggest that disappeared isn't a verb

~~~
syllogism
Surely you mean isn't a transitive verb? Anyway, it's rare but well attested:
[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappeared+it...](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappeared+it&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdisappeared%20it%3B%2Cc0)

~~~
dragonwriter
“Disappeared” in the sense used here refers to domestic opponents being
covertly kidnapped—and usually murdered—by their governments; a usage that
originated in connection with Argentina's “Dirty War”, but which has been used
for many other situations since.

The use of “disappeared” this way here I would say I is very conscious
commentary in itself.

------
tob_h
The linked site as is (whether intentional or not) contains an annoying spam
script that periodically redirects to some spam game on the iOS AppStore.

I can't find a "flag" or "report spam" link, though, which is why I'm posting
this as a comment.

------
smoyer
Interesting article but not so surprising after the revelations of how Aaron
Swartz was harassed. More interesting (to me) is that using "disappeared" as a
verb (in this tense) has made it to the headline of an article.

