
Rikers Drove My Innocent Patient to Plead Guilty - de_Selby
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/rikers-island-plea-bargains-213223
======
Asbostos
How is a plea deal not duress? Imagine if a cop pointed a gun at you and said
"I'll shoot you unless you confess". We wouldn't accept that confession but we
do accept a prosecutor saying "you'll get the death penalty at trial unless
you plead guilty now." Same goes for lesser sentences vs threats of physical
violence.

~~~
sp332
Because they can't directly give the person a death sentence. If you turn down
the plea, you go to a regular trial where a jury determines if you're guilty
and the judge & jury determine your sentence.

~~~
hughperkins
Well, they do, after several years at Rikers ...

------
blisterpeanuts
Plea bargaining should not exist. It makes a mockery of justice, turns the
legal system into a marketplace where you bid for relative degrees of guilt
and are rewarded for "copping a plea", and occasionally snares the innocent.

The war on drugs has clogged the system, but also our somewhat lawless and
rudderless population since the early 1960s, when a generally orderly society
gave way to a general contempt for authority. And the population has grown far
faster than the number of courts to accommodate it.

I think the only solution is to legalize drugs and build more courts to
address the remaining cases more quickly and efficiently, without throwing due
process out the window.

Better education would help, too. And instill moral education in our children
in the schools and at home. In the end, a more moral society will bring about
a more moral justice system.

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
> Plea bargaining should not exist. It makes a mockery of justice, turns the
> legal system into a marketplace where you bid for relative degrees of guilt
> and are rewarded for "copping a plea", and occasionally snares the innocent.

I confess that I'm somewhat naive regarding the larger context of this. I have
dealt with the criminal justice system, and I was very thankful for plea
bargaining. I was, without a doubt, very guilty of what I was accused of doing
and I knew that the state would have zero issue proving that and convicting
me, and my lawyer tended to agree. I did not have the money to post bail (at
the time I was very poor, the bail was very reasonable), and my lawyer told me
that a jury trial would keep me in jail for far longer than my sentence would
be if I pled down. With my plea bargain, I spent 22 days in jail. I likely
would have been in jail for at least a month and a half, even if my lawyer
pushed as hard as he could for a speedy trial.

With that out of the way, while I understand that the plea bargain process is
abused, isn't my case an example of why plea bargaining should exist, at least
in a limited context? It saved everyone involved time and money.

~~~
zo1
>" _isn 't my case an example of why plea bargaining should exist, at least in
a limited context? It saved everyone involved time and money._"

Other than saving money/time for some people, how was it a net benefit to the
victims (if any), or society in general? Care to elaborate as I'm not quite
understanding what you're saying?

I don't think I've ever encountered the notion (other than in Law&Order) that
the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment.
This is traditionally a power held only by judges come sentencing time[1].
Personally, it's akin to the prosecutors acting as judge and jury. You were
not judged by your peers, even though you knew you were guilty (and probably
everyone around you). But the prosecutor took the role of jury to essentially
"blackmail"[1] you using the power of leniency that a judge would have.

The system is broken, and we shouldn't have to come to a point where we make
such comments or interpretations. The expectation is that laws should be
obeyed, and punishment of them is applied equally to all. But what we have
here boils down to "equally for all", _except_ "more leniently" for those that
don't waste money and time of those involved.

[1]. Correct me if I'm wrong historically. [2]. One broad definition of the
term blackmail is: "the use of threats or the manipulation of someone's
feelings to force them to do something."

~~~
cloverich
> Other than saving money/time for some people

Time and money are both limited resources, especially in the case of the
Criminal Just system. That alone is an argument _for_ its existence.

> the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of
> punishment.

IANAL, but believe the judge is the one who decides (e.g. you could
potentially plea out and _not_ get the deal offered by the prosecutor).
Moreover, if you don't like the bargain you can always roll the dice in the
courtroom where you'll face the established punishment for your crime (rather
than the reduced one being offered).

To be clear, I dont like the system as is either. But I think a speedy trial
would probably be impossible without bargaining. Thus I think the only route
to a solution (i.e. the one we should perhaps focus on) is: 1. Reduced
penalties for various crimes 2. Drug legalization

~~~
mikeash
The limited nature of time and money for the criminal justice system is
artificial scarcity. We _choose_ not to fund them adequately, and make up for
this by making unfair and unjust arrangements with the accused.

The portion of government spending that goes toward courts is not terribly
high. If we wanted to and needed to, we could increase it by a huge amount
without greatly increasing tax burdens.

There is no practical reason we can't give every single accused person a
speedy trial. We just don't feel like putting in the effort.

------
jimworm
It has been known for millennia that confessions obtained under torture are
very effective at reducing the workload of the courts. So much so, that a
billion-dollar industry can grow its own market at will with a minimum
increase in judicial expenses.

What's the next "disruption" in the industry? Automated guilt-finding? Mass
surveillance, check. Self-running prisons? Automated jail management, check.
Automated lawyers? Watson, check.

The system is turning into a predator that seeks out the slow and weak as
prey; unfortunately, unlike a predator in nature, it decreases the health of
the entire herd.

To naively take the predator analogy to the extreme, it would be more
beneficial for a nation to randomly select poor people and summarily execute
them than maintain a justice system that deals almost exclusively in
injustice.

------
given
I guess the suspects should not go to the same place as the convicts. So
prisons only for convicts and "safekeeping places" (which are not allowed to
be near a prison) for the suspects.

To treat suspects like criminals is not right. You and me could end up being a
suspect without the slightest guilt in the matter.

~~~
morganvachon
> I guess the suspects should not go to the same place as the convicts.

By and large, they don't. Suspects go to county or city jail, not prison, to
wait for bail or their court date. Convicted persons go to prison.

The issue is that a large, and growing, percentage of the pre-trial jail
population is repeat offenders, people who _have_ been to prison and therefore
the jail environment begins to resemble the prison environment. In the county
where I work, with a total population of nearly 1 million people, the jail
houses about 2300 inmates on a regular basis. Those inmates are classified and
housed based on a number of factors, including the type and severity of their
current charges, their criminal history, direct observation by medical and
psychological staff, age and infirmity, and so on.

Still, even with this sensible approach to keeping the "hardcore" inmates away
from those accused of minor crimes, occasionally someone who has never seen
the inside of a jail before ends up in a cell or dorm with career criminals.
There's no easy solution, but proper classification and staff education go a
long way towards keeping pre-trial jails safer for the accused.

As for the subject of this article, I can't help but wonder how high his bond
was set for that particular charge, given that most bonding companies
typically charge no more than 15% of the total bond amount. Even if his bond
was $10,000 (which would be consistent with the charge here in Georgia, but of
course NYC may be drastically different), the fee to a professional bondsman
would be $1500, something his family and friends could scrape together. Even
if his bond was set higher than that, he could have petitioned the judge for a
reduced bond or even a ROR (released on his own recognizance) bond, given the
non-violent nature of the offense and the fact he's never had a felony
conviction.

No, it sounds like a big part of the problem is apathy on the part of the
public defender's office in NYC, coupled with district attorneys who care more
about conviction rates than actual justice and judges who are nothing more
than rubber stamp machines.

~~~
coldcode
It's not apathy for public defender's office, it's that each one generally has
dozens of cases to try to work on. Governments hate to spend money on public
defense and prosecutors are happy to make their lives miserable. I find it
amazing that anyone actually wants that job.

~~~
imroot
I was a public defender for a year. When I was interviewed, I was told that
I'd normally do about 80-100 cases a year. During that year, I experienced
true burnout around my 250th case. I took an unpaid Leave of Absence and
ultimately left law because of this.

------
jimrandomh
New York has a legal and constitutional obligation to hire enough judges,
public defenders and court staff to provide speedy trials for all of the
accused. "Speedy" is legally defined to mean six months. For some reason, they
haven't done it, resulting in the crime against humanity that is Rikers
Island. This is odd, because I can't imagine they even save money this way;
imprisoning people is expensive.

~~~
vidarh
New York defines this differently. From an article about Kalief Browder[1] who
spent 3 years at Rikers before charges were just dropped (he subsequently
committed suicide):

> Many states have so-called speedy-trial laws, which require trials to start
> within a certain time frame. New York State’s version is slightly different,
> and is known as the “ready rule.” This rule stipulates that all felony cases
> (except homicides) must be ready for trial within six months of arraignment,
> or else the charges can be dismissed. In practice, however, this time limit
> is subject to technicalities. The clock stops for many reasons—for example,
> when defense attorneys submit motions before trial—so that the amount of
> time that is officially held to have elapsed can be wildly different from
> the amount of time that really has. In 2011, seventy-four per cent of felony
> cases in the Bronx were older than six months.

> In order for a trial to start, both the defense attorney and the prosecutor
> have to declare that they are ready; the court clerk then searches for a
> trial judge who is free and transfers the case, and jury selection can
> begin. Not long after Browder was indicted, an assistant district attorney
> sent the court a “Notice of Readiness,” stating that “the People are ready
> for trial.” The case was put on the calendar for possible trial on December
> 10th, but it did not start that day. On January 28, 2011, Browder’s two-
> hundred-and-fifty-eighth day in jail, he was brought back to the courthouse
> once again. This time, the prosecutor said, “The People are not ready. We
> are requesting one week.” The next court date set by the judge—March 9th—was
> not one week away but six.

... and so it continued. He went to court 31 times. None of those times for
the actual trial. Yet most of the 3 years he spent at Rikers, the "clock was
stopped" and so it was not counted by the court as more than 6 months.

[1] [http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-
browder-1993-...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-
browder-1993-2015)

~~~
a_c_s
This is both enlightening and depressing.

We need to redefine "speedy trial" with a more common-sense definition. Six
months, even without the technicalities of clock-stoppages, is in no way,
shape or form a "speedy" trial.

I'd argue something like 30 days is the upper limit of "speedy". If our courts
are too backed up to support this, then we ought to readjust our spending to
prioritize "justice for all".

New York State's courts have a budget of about $2 Billion/year[1]. In
comparison, the state's annual budget is almost $153 Billion/year[2]

[1]:
[https://www.nycourts.gov/admin/financialops/BGT15-16/2015-16...](https://www.nycourts.gov/admin/financialops/BGT15-16/2015-16-UCS-
BUDGET.pdf) [2]:
[http://openbudget.ny.gov/spendingForm.html](http://openbudget.ny.gov/spendingForm.html)

------
tluyben2
Many stories like this around and I still do not understand it; how does it
happen in a western country (not to mention the richest country)? A judge
would have to glance over the evidence for 5 seconds and another jail spot
would be free. Sure the conditions in those jails are really insane for a
western country, however for hardcore convicted criminals I guess there are
some (...) people who think that's ok, but what's up with the having people
wait for trials in trivial cases?

~~~
pjc50
The story avoids mentioning the ethnicity of the accused in this case, but the
US system's brutality cannot be disentangled from its racism.

I'd be very surprised if this kind of treatment was given to the average white
guy who hits someone with a car. But a nonwhite guy on a motorbike? Much more
plausible.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>I'd be very surprised if this kind of treatment //

That's just blunt discrimination unless it's based on data/stats you trust.

Basically what you appear to be using the "I'd be surprised" phrase to avoid
really saying is that 'white people are racists and so the system, which they
control, must be tailored to let them off more cheaply'; that's fine with
strong trustworthy data IMO, without you're just being racist.

~~~
pjc50
Racial disparity in the system is like global warming: there's lots of
evidence which you have to work hard not to see.

You could start with, eg
[http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=349...](http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3499&context=flr)
and its references and footnotes. Footnote 4 contains the surprising sentence:

"Very few whites were charged with crimes in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia. I was a public defender for twelve years and carried a
full caseload for six years. I represented only two white defendants during
those years. The exper- iences of my colleagues were very similar"

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It a sensitive area and there are many compounding causes that can give
similar effects - different races could have different rates of criminal
activity for example - so you need good data that goes beyond anecdotes and
can look widely across the system. Indeed I'd go so far as to say you probably
need to assess the system in question against other systems - perhaps places
where biases of different kinds are expected _a priori_.

Presumably public defender are in court pretty much every day? So even
assuming a caseload of one a day for 300 days of those 12 years we have a
ratio of 1:1800 of "whites" to others. Is this really anything like how it is?
Wikipedia figures (link below) suggest about 6-7 times the incarceration rate
per head of population for "adult black non-Hispanic males" and ~3 times the
level of "whites" for Hispanic males.

Interestingly the example case in footnote 4 is a report of a Vietnamese male
being killed and the killer being aided by the prosecution in preparing a case
for self-defence. Despite this being referenced as a case of racism - which I
can't determine the truth of but seems quite possible - Wikipedia tells me
that "Asians" have the lowest incarceration rate of all
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Race))
which following through with the logic of "non-whites are biased against, this
can be seen by proportionally less whites being convicted" means that Asians
are getting the most bias in their favour of all. But of course there are
other explanations, like Asians committing less crimes, or Asians being less
often caught committing crimes.

You appear to have looked at this in depth, I have not, do you know of
comparative studies: It strikes me that in a situation where a "black" police
officer arrests someone, they have a black public defending attorney, or a
black judge then if there is racism based on the controlling forces being
light-skinned ("white") that those cases would have a significant difference
in profile of arrest, prosecution and incarceration respectively. This must be
pretty easy to demonstrate with the available statistics - I think that would
convince me ( _) that there wasn 't a misinterpretation of results; that for
example it wasn't primarily the influence of poverty.

What I found quite interesting in your citation was it seemed not to be
concerned at all - eg when looking at traffic stops - with whether those
arrested had committed a crime or not, similarly when looking at drug use and
dealing.

_ \- I don't understand racism at all which makes it difficult to imagine that
it's possible to be having the massive effects claimed.

------
hughperkins
1\. It seems he really did kill someone with his bike. But it's not clear to
me why this would be considered a homicide? Is this standard practice in USA?

2\. For some reason, it seems common practice in USA to assume that if someone
decided not to go to trial, that this means they admitted their guilt. This
seems .... bizarre somehow. Perhaps 'pleading guilty' should be changed
semantically to 'chose not to go to trial'?

3\. It seems odd that if you are convicted of a felony that this means that
you'll basically be unable to get a job for the rest of your life. How is this
going to help rehabilitate people? Might as well just execute them. At least
its quick. (At least, it is quick in China, which is where I live).

~~~
c4n4rd
1\. Someone died. Most DAs (district attorneys) sees this as a reason to
charge people. They will charge even if it is not the case so that the shirt-
storm that might come from the media does not fall into his hands - it is like
district attorneys think: "It will not decide, let the jury decide and I have
my hands clean: If the person was found guilty, it was the jury who did it. If
not found guilty, it was also the jury - so do not blame me for the situation"

2\. You really need to watch a documentary called "The Plea"
([http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/))
to get an insight on how FUCKED UP the "justice" in the USA is.

3\. The media and politicians have much to blame here. If you are ever
convicted of a crime (even like in the case of a plea bargain) you life is
likely over because no one wants to take a chance by hiring a "convict" \-
Business do not want to take this kind of risk.

~~~
revelation
Huh? No, the majority of people who kill others using a vehicle of sorts are
not ever charged (certainly not in NY), not even given as much as a ticket. If
you remain at the scene and are not drunk, you can drive tomorrow.

(This applies even if your license is suspended or you were otherwise
reckless.)

Now, the mistake you can not make is to choose the wrong mode of transport in
your killing. Apparently this kid used a motorcycle. Any other transport but
the good ol' car is an out group; you drastically increase your chances of
being charged by using it.

(Not that I want to take the stance of this article that this is all "an
accident"; too many reckless crashes are written off as "accidents". If you
take a high-powered machine into the public, you should accept criminal
responsibility regardless of your fault in a matter simply because of the
excess risk you have brought into the equation.)

------
tdkl
It's not "twisted" justice system.

It's totalitarian.

Using scare tactics like this is brainwashing the person in question to be in
state in saying, feeling, showing something he wouldn't in the lack of these
circumstances in a democratic country.

------
jensen123
Many people seem to think that human rights abuses is something that only
happens in dictatorships, and not democracies. I wonder, though, if you
compare say the US with China, is China any worse? Or the US compared to the
old monarchies in Europe, on a per capita basis?

~~~
vidarh
China certainly imprisons a much smaller proportion of its population, so
that's a good question.

"Worse" probably depends on who you ask. China is decidedly un-free for
everyone in that everyone knows that certain things puts you at risk, and so
e.g. in terms of free speech China is clearly worse.

But if you're sufficiently poor in the US, your odds of spending a substantial
proportion of your life in prison is vastly higher than in China, and I
frankly don't know if your chance of getting a reasonably fair trial in the US
in that situation is all that much better than China.

Personally, if I in some parallel universe found myself on a US jury (which I
won't - I'n not US), I would vote to acquit in all but the most atrocious
cases, as I would not in good conscience find it moral to contribute to
subjecting anyone to the US prison system. But as we see in the article, in
most cases, it's not up to a jury.

------
joesmo
Since clearly Rikers has over 400 violations of the 6th Amendment (since by no
sane person's definition can over two years in jail be considered speedy), how
about releasing these people on their own recognizance until trial?

------
randomname2
At least he got a trial.

/sarc

~~~
randomname2
Just to put this into context, this is of course a terrible injustice, but
even worse was Kalief Browder, the teen who killed himself after being
imprisoned in Rikers for three years without a trial.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-
law](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law)

