Trial by Jury under Siege: How much more can we take?

[bedowin62]

why are liberals so ignorant? why do they call themselves critical thinkers; then take a one-sided approach to everything?

does it ever occur to left-wing nutjobs that there are more people incarcerated here maybe because in other countries bad people get away with more than than law-breakers here get away with?

 

[Disir]

Highlights:

In 2012, the number of admissions to state and federal prison in the United States was 609,800 offenders, the lowest number since 1999.
The number of releases from U.S. prisons in 2012 (637,400) exceeded that of admissions for the fourth consecutive year, contributing to the decline in the total U.S. prison population.
In 2011, the majority of state prisoners in 2011 (53%) were serving time for violent offenses.
New court commitments made up 82% of state admissions in 1978, 57% in 2000, and 71% in 2012.
New court commitments to state prisons for drug offenders decreased 22% between 2006 and 2011, while parole violation admissions decreased 31%.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Prisoners in 2012: Trends in Admissions and Releases, 1991-2012

Different from the federal prison:

Highlights:

Suspects arrested and booked for federal supervision violations increased 91%, from 12,716 arrests in 1994 to 24,344 arrests in 2010.
Five federal law enforcement agencies referred 77% of suspects prosecuted in U.S. district court in 2010.
In 2010, non-U.S. citizens comprised 47% of suspects charged in U.S. district court, 26% of offenders in federal prison, and 5% of offenders on post-conviction supervision.
Immigration was the most prevalent offense at arrest and investigation in 2010.
Drug offenses were the most prevalent offense among defendants sentenced to prison, in prison at yearend, and on supervised release in the community.
Ninety-one percent of felons charged in U.S. district court in 2010 were disposed by a guilty plea.
In 2010, immigration (88%), violent (86%), and drug trafficking (84%) offenders were more likely to be detained prior to case disposition.
At yearend 2010, over 400,000 federal offenders were under some form of correctional control.
Fourteen percent of the 59,391 offenders released from federal prison in 2008 returned to federal prison within three years of release.
Among those offenders who were released from federal prison in 2008 and returned within three years, 59% returned for a supervision violation and 39% returned for a new offense.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Federal Justice Statistics, 2010


This is data from the BOP:
BOP Statistics: Inmate Offenses

To take a plea bargain is a decision that the defendant makes. It isn't under siege.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm all for doing away with jury trials. Asking twelve ignorant people to make an educated decision on a matter of law that takes lawyers years of study to do isn't realistic. Plus it turns judges into referees deciding only procedural things and not actually judging someone. Bench trials > Jury trials.

 

[JimBowie1958]

why are liberals so ignorant? why do they call themselves critical thinkers; then take a one-sided approach to everything?

does it ever occur to left-wing nutjobs that there are more people incarcerated here maybe because in other countries bad people get away with more than than law-breakers here get away with?

If we removed people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, our incarceration rate would be more inline with the rest of the world.

But we just cant let people smoke pot, for some stupid fucking reason.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm all for doing away with jury trials. Asking twelve ignorant people to make an educated decision on a matter of law that takes lawyers years of study to do isn't realistic. Plus it turns judges into referees deciding only procedural things and not actually judging someone. Bench trials > Jury trials.

Bullshit.

Trial by jury is one of the few safeguards against tyrannical government that we have left.

That is why jury trials were so popular among the victors of the English Civil War, as they had lived through an abusive monarchy and the right to a trial by jury was among the few fig leaves they could use to delay the tyrant.

Today we have stupid laws that are imposed on us by the legal system, an apathetic congress and a misinformed and misled public. Trial by jury is a protection from the worst impacts of such nonsense in the form of jury nullification.

Know of a case of a person arrested for possessing pot, pot that was not on his body but in the same apartment. The drug dealer had been busted and cut a deal with the DA to set up all his customers. So this dude was watching the apartment for the guy, didn't buy anything from him, but the cops raided the place and busted him for possession.

The jury pronounced him innocent though he had clearly been in violation of the law by simply being on site.

Jury nullification is going to become much more widespread as people wake up to how the justice system is being used to suppress them instead of protect them from the criminals in power.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Read this Patriots. The Suspension of Jury Trials (or confiscation of firearms obviously) is the ONLY situation in which Americans can actively take up arms against a Tyranny.

 

[SmedlyButler]

A well constructed, well thought out post that could have been penned by any thinking liberal on this board. Without the 2ndA monicker I would never have guessed the OP. (Who I am usually in 99.9% disagreement.) Well done, and it should be thought provoking and frightening to all hues of the political spectrum.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Read this Patriots. The Suspension of Jury Trials (or confiscation of firearms obviously) is the ONLY situation in which Americans can actively take up arms against a Tyranny.

I would also count 1) suspension of the Constitution, 2) Permanent suspension of Congress, 3) Declaration of Martial Law without a terminating condition, 4) removal of freedom of speech, and 5) any declaration of a life long Presidency.

Why do you only limit it to end of jury trials and the confiscation of guns.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm all for doing away with jury trials. Asking twelve ignorant people to make an educated decision on a matter of law that takes lawyers years of study to do isn't realistic. Plus it turns judges into referees deciding only procedural things and not actually judging someone. Bench trials > Jury trials.

Bullshit.

Trial by jury is one of the few safeguards against tyrannical government that we have left.

That is why jury trials were so popular among the victors of the English Civil War, as they had lived through an abusive monarchy and the right to a trial by jury was among the few fig leaves they could use to delay the tyrant.

Today we have stupid laws that are imposed on us by the legal system, an apathetic congress and a misinformed and misled public. Trial by jury is a protection from the worst impacts of such nonsense in the form of jury nullification.

Know of a case of a person arrested for possessing pot, pot that was not on his body but in the same apartment. The drug dealer had been busted and cut a deal with the DA to set up all his customers. So this dude was watching the apartment for the guy, didn't buy anything from him, but the cops raided the place and busted him for possession.

The jury pronounced him innocent though he had clearly been in violation of the law by simply being on site.

Jury nullification is going to become much more widespread as people wake up to how the justice system is being used to suppress them instead of protect them from the criminals in power.

Would guesstimate less than 1% of the citizenry ever finds themselves in a courtroom in their entire lives. So a tyrannical government that officially abandons jury trials isn't effecting more than however many are being judged in the first place. In other words, the tyrannical government is a tyrannical government whether by way of trials or not.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm all for doing away with jury trials. Asking twelve ignorant people to make an educated decision on a matter of law that takes lawyers years of study to do isn't realistic. Plus it turns judges into referees deciding only procedural things and not actually judging someone. Bench trials > Jury trials.

Bullshit.

Trial by jury is one of the few safeguards against tyrannical government that we have left.

That is why jury trials were so popular among the victors of the English Civil War, as they had lived through an abusive monarchy and the right to a trial by jury was among the few fig leaves they could use to delay the tyrant.

Today we have stupid laws that are imposed on us by the legal system, an apathetic congress and a misinformed and misled public. Trial by jury is a protection from the worst impacts of such nonsense in the form of jury nullification.

Know of a case of a person arrested for possessing pot, pot that was not on his body but in the same apartment. The drug dealer had been busted and cut a deal with the DA to set up all his customers. So this dude was watching the apartment for the guy, didn't buy anything from him, but the cops raided the place and busted him for possession.

The jury pronounced him innocent though he had clearly been in violation of the law by simply being on site.

Jury nullification is going to become much more widespread as people wake up to how the justice system is being used to suppress them instead of protect them from the criminals in power.

Would guesstimate less than 1% of the citizenry ever finds themselves in a courtroom in their entire lives. So a tyrannical government that officially abandons jury trials isn't effecting more than however many are being judged in the first place. In other words, the tyrannical government is a tyrannical government whether by way of trials or not.

Your estimate is laughably low, Delta. With nearly 3 million people incarcerated, 1% of our nation has not only gone through the courts but has wound up convicted and sentenced to spend time behind bars.

The number of people who go through the system each year and are declared innocent, get convicted but no jail are far more prevalent by mathematical necessity.

Now multiply that by the number of years we all live and I would put the number of people who appear in court at ANY time in their lives for anything from a traffic ticket to civil suit to a murder trial and your claim is just hysterically wrong.

Where in the name of All that is Good, did you get 1%?

 

[whitehall]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. In the greatest Country in the world the Police are required not only to inform a person who was arrested for a crime that they are entitled to legal defense but there is s system in place to furnish every person with legal council. If they decide to roll the dice and go for a trial it's their option, otherwise they get a break in the sentence but the State is not required to offer a plea bargain on every case. It sounds like the best of a bad situation. Even traffic violations are entitled to a trial. Imagine how clogged up the system would be if everyone went to trial. They would be sitting in jail awaiting trial longer than a plea bargain.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. In the greatest Country in the world the Police are required not only to inform a person who was arrested for a crime that they are entitled to legal defense but there is s system in place to furnish every person with legal council. If they decide to roll the dice and go for a trial it's their option, otherwise they get a break in the sentence but the State is not required to offer a plea bargain on every case. It sounds like the best of a bad situation. Even traffic violations are entitled to a trial. Imagine how clogged up the system would be if everyone went to trial. They would be sitting in jail awaiting trial longer than a plea bargain.

My heartburn is with the prosecutorial practice of stacking as many charges as possible on a defendant making them risks decades in jail over petty crimes or plead down to what they are actually accused of doing.

We have so many innocent people in jail now it is ridiculous.

 

[SmedlyButler]

two quotes by Winston Churchill.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Substitute "The jury system" for democracy and "Justice" for government. Juries, for all their faults are still an accused's best defense against an all powerful entity trying to curtail liberty with all the assets at their disposal. (think Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo).

The second quote could refer to the majorty of responders in this thread.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

The inclusion of the 2ndA in the conversation is distracting but the overall truthfulness of the OP does not stand or fall on it's mention.

 

[whitehall]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. In the greatest Country in the world the Police are required not only to inform a person who was arrested for a crime that they are entitled to legal defense but there is s system in place to furnish every person with legal council. If they decide to roll the dice and go for a trial it's their option, otherwise they get a break in the sentence but the State is not required to offer a plea bargain on every case. It sounds like the best of a bad situation. Even traffic violations are entitled to a trial. Imagine how clogged up the system would be if everyone went to trial. They would be sitting in jail awaiting trial longer than a plea bargain.

My heartburn is with the prosecutorial practice of stacking as many charges as possible on a defendant making them risks decades in jail over petty crimes or plead down to what they are actually accused of doing.

We have so many innocent people in jail now it is ridiculous.

Pretty hard to "stack charges" against an innocent defendant. Maybe they thought they were just a little bit guilty.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. In the greatest Country in the world the Police are required not only to inform a person who was arrested for a crime that they are entitled to legal defense but there is s system in place to furnish every person with legal council. If they decide to roll the dice and go for a trial it's their option, otherwise they get a break in the sentence but the State is not required to offer a plea bargain on every case. It sounds like the best of a bad situation. Even traffic violations are entitled to a trial. Imagine how clogged up the system would be if everyone went to trial. They would be sitting in jail awaiting trial longer than a plea bargain.

My heartburn is with the prosecutorial practice of stacking as many charges as possible on a defendant making them risks decades in jail over petty crimes or plead down to what they are actually accused of doing.

We have so many innocent people in jail now it is ridiculous.

Pretty hard to "stack charges" against an innocent defendant. Maybe they thought they were just a little bit guilty.

Or hit them with 50-60 charges, tell them that if convicted on ANY, they'll get 30+ years...or they can plead to something and get 90 days and probation. It DOES happen...denying it is just stupid.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Charge stacking certainly runs afoul of Double Jeopardy and Cruel and Unusual Punishment clauses;

Bullshit, prove it.

being forced to cede the adjudication of the accusations against you, by a Jury of your Peers, runs afoul of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments.

Good thing this isn't happening en masse, you tinfoil hat-wearing alarmist, given that--as you noted--people are WILLFULLY CHOOSING to agree to a plea bargain.

This is such a non-issue. Go back to bed, everyone. Nothing to see here.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Read this Patriots. The Suspension of Jury Trials (or confiscation of firearms obviously) is the ONLY situation in which Americans can actively take up arms against a Tyranny.

I would also count 1) suspension of the Constitution, 2) Permanent suspension of Congress, 3) Declaration of Martial Law without a terminating condition, 4) removal of freedom of speech, and 5) any declaration of a life long Presidency.

Why do you only limit it to end of jury trials and the confiscation of guns.

1) Suspending the Constitution would also be suspending Jury Trials and Right to Bear Arms, since both are in the Constitution itself.

2) That would be suspending the Constitution.

3) That would be ABSOLUTELY suspending the Constitution.

4) That is not cause for revolt, since Juries will routinely acquit. This is why the Alien and Sedition Acts failed hardcore. Either the state never brought the case (because they knew the juries would acquit) and whenever that state thought they might get a conviction and brought the case, the Juries surprised them and acquitted more than 90% of the time.

5) That would be suspending the Constitution.

It's limited to ending Jury Trials because whilst the People retain the right to Trial by Jury, only the People can convict their own Peers. Thus, if widespread tyranny is gripping the nation, it's because the People are oppressing themselves by convicting each other. The War on Drugs is a fine example of the People oppressing themselves. For the People to revolt against Tyranny, while Trial by Jury remains intact, is for the People to revolt against themselves...that is an absurdity.

In the case of suspension of Jury Trials, when the People bear arms against the Tyranny, it's called Restoring the Rule of Law, not revolting.

Confiscation of firearms is a "necessary" cause for revolt, because if the Government seizes firearms, they remove your ability to Restore the Rule of Law if the Government suspends Jury Trials. In this case, it's also called Restoring the Rule of Law, because the Constitution forbids the Government from seizing firearms. Such a lawless Government is Tyranny, and it is the Duty of the People to abolish it and Restore the Rule of Law.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, let's get real here.

The fact is, most cases don't have jury trials because usually, before the crook goes to trial, it's obvious he's as guilty as a cat in a canary cage, and whatever the prosecutor is offering is probably less than what a jury would do to him.

Let us not forget, two juries sentenced Rolando Cruz to death in Illinois despite the fact another man confessed to committing the murder alone.