It seems to me that the Chinese government is not managed well. Yes, the Shenzhen researcher should have been stopped, but I see no reason to put him in prison.
He went to prison for embarrassing the Chinese government. If this happened in America or EU, then they would go to prison for performing unethical experiments on humans. In modern times, for good or for bad there is a large process before we try something on humans. As the past has shown that there have been a lot of death, and often unjust selection on who to experiment on. And many are suffering from the consequences after the fact.
Hold up... are you actually under the impression that you need to PAY for a trial by jury in the US? And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
That's an impressive level of stupidity.
The sixth amendment to the constitution guarantees a citizen's right to a trial by jury regardless of personal finances and also provides a right to a "speedy" trial... which is further protected from delay by the speedy trial act of 1974.
We have a highly concentrated crime problem in this country, and one that's largely limited to high concentration population centers, and our high rates of incarceration in those areas reflect that reality. In Boston for example, 53% of the city’s gun violence occurs in less than 3% of the city’s intersections and streets... a full 68% of all homicides in this country occur in only 5% of the counties. The insinuation that America has an incarceration issue ignores the realities of the issue and, with China having roughly 43% of their population located outside of the cities, any mention of overall figures is disingenuous misinformation at best.
You don't need to Pay for a jury trial... However if you want a layer who just wasn't picked out of a pool of available lawyers being paid a "charity rate" to cover you for any prolonged legal action, you are going to need to pay a lot more. If you get the court provided lawyer his interest is to get this job over with as quickly as possible so they can work on something more profitable. So they will probably just try to settle out of court, or get you to plead guilty and take a lighter punishment.
If you have a lot of money or chances on getting rewarded a lot of money, then you could get a legal team vs just a lawyer. To help defend you and make sure you get a more thorough trial.
Obviously if you have a lot of money then you can afford to pay for a higher level of service but it's absolutely false that a public defender's best interest is to get your case over with as quickly as possible to "work on something more profitable". A public defender works for the public defender's office and there is no profitable vs unprofitable case for them, they're getting paid the same for each case. The two disadvantages to public defenders are that the
Much of what you are saying is wrong and horribly naive. So please don't cast aspersions on others.
A public defender works for the public defender's office
This is often not true. Lawyers in private practice are often asked, and sometimes ordered, to take on public defender duties. They are paid of course, but not as much as they make from their private clients.
The two disadvantages to public defenders are that they typically weren't successful enough in school to garner better job offers coming out of college or haven't distinguished themselves through their casework
That is the point. A PD is usually going to give you a 2nd rate defense. People with public defenders are more likely to be convicted or to be pushed into a lousy plea deal.
The richer you are, the more likely you are to be acquitted or to work out a "no-jail" plea deal.
it's more advantageous for everyone involved that you plea down to a lesser offense and move on with your life.
Indeed. But not all plea deals are equal, and whether you are guilty or innocent is mostly irrelevant. An innocent person who is acquitted at trial often has their life destroyed by pre-trial confinement, astronomical legal expenses that drain their pensions and home equity, career interruption, and ruined reputation. A quick plea deal for a reduced charge can avoid much of that.
What are the trials like in China that make them so much better?
I would not say that trials in China are "better", but they are better in some ways and worse in others.
The major problem with China's system is a lack of judicial independence. Judges are required to obey orders from the CCP. So someone convicted of a political crime is certainly going to be treated more fairly in America.
On the other hand, a normal quotidian criminal defendant of modest means is going to be treated more fairly in China.
America has an adversarial legal system. The prosecutor controls the investigation and has a vested interest in obtaining a conviction. The investigators are looking for incriminating evidence. If they accidentally stumble across exonerating evidence, they are legally required to turn it over to the defense, but they have plenty of incentive to avoid finding such evidence. The defense receives no public funding to conduct their own investigating, although rich people can pay for their own investigation.
China has an inquisitorial system and the court controls the investigation. The investigators are neutral and have no vested interest in either a conviction or acquittal. The investigators have no loyalty to either the prosecutor or the defense and seek out all the facts impartially, at least in theory.
IMO, the legal systems in both countries are deeply dysfunctional and unjust. I complain more about America's system because I live in America, I am an American citizen, and therefore my opinion should mean something. My opinion means nothing to China.
And you moved the goal post. No not really, the original post was a bit of a hyperbole. We know that poor people have jury trials all the time. However for most people when given a public defendant will normally just try to get them with a reduced punishment. I went to contest a traffic ticket I got (running a red light), I first pleaded innocent, then the PD convinced me to plead guilty to "Parking on Pavement" and pay a fine. I didn't leave the court feeling that justice was served because I felt I to
>>Do you have evidence to suggest that any public defender has not represented their client to the best of their ability? >Anything less than a good defense should be considered improper,
Reread question. We are already talking about a state certified profession. Subjective definitions like "good defense" is not a standard that can be addressed in any meaningful way. Everyone that is on the losing side of a "good defense" will argue it is not a good defense by fact it lost. Moreso, the bar exam alrea
>The investigators are looking for incriminating evidence
Evidence that can and should only be obtained by legal means. Is Parallel Construction legal in China? Is there such a concept of illegally obtain evidence?
> Inquisition vs advocate
Not sure that is a hard choice.
>, the legal systems in both countries are deeply dysfunctional and unjust.
Measured against perfect anything is dysfunctional and unjust. Anything will work "good enough" with enough power and inertia.
Sorry, but I don't believe for a second that Chinese court investigators would be neutral.
In the same way that prosecutors in the US have little incentive to follow their mandate to turn over exonerating evidence, I would bet that the Chinese inquisitors have even less desire to do anything other than obtain a clean, fast conviction. Which means putting away the suspect at hand. Anything else would take tons of extra time. You really think those investigators have the light caseloads that allow thorou
> However for most people when given a public defendant will normally just try to get them with a reduced punishment
Which, depending on the circumstance, is a good option and most likely the best option.
>bias towards on how much you can pay to win,
That is the norm and most common in addition to insider connection. Lawyers are expensive since they know the law and can work it to benefit themselves. Establishing a "fair" trial is a difficult thing to quantify and actualize in all circumstances. We have
I went to contest a traffic ticket I got (running a red light), I first pleaded innocent, then the PD convinced me to plead guilty to "Parking on Pavement" and pay a fine. I didn't leave the court feeling that justice was served because I felt I took the turn while the light just turned yellow.
This is why plea deals should not exist for criminal cases. If they don't think they have enough evidence, then they should just let you go. Justice is not served when a criminal gets 5 years instead of 10. Nor is it served if an innocent man is manipulated into accepting those 5 years while the criminal goes free.
Also confessions should be banned. And eye-witness testimony should be severely discounted in favor of camera footage and other physical evidence. The brain can conjure up all sorts hallucinations
A PD is usually going to give you a 2nd rate defense.
Not necessarily. Jobs are not obtained on qualifications alone. Who you know is also very important - possibly even more important. Just because one little sperm gets to fertilize the egg doesn't mean that all the other little sperms are defective...
Everything I said was factually accurate, irrespective of your ignorance on the matter or your desperate attempts at jaded dispersion of the justice system.
Lawyers in private practice are literally never ordered to take public defender cases... dumbass. The only circumstance under which a private practice lawyer can even be 'coerced' into such action is via a part of their own plea deal in which they offer to render services to the public defenders office in return for
The sixth amendment to the constitution guarantees a citizen's right to a trial by jury regardless of personal finances and also provides a right to a "speedy" trial... which is further protected from delay by the speedy trial act of 1974.
Ha ha, good one. Next you'll be telling me that the law forbids any person from holding an office of profit or trust from accepting presents or emoluments from foreign states, and since the law forbids it, then it doesn't happen.
Hold up... are you actually under the impression that you need to PAY for a trial by jury in the US? And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
That's an impressive level of stupidity.
...
Wow, what a classic case of denial and a real nice fantasy, in truth, there's still little or no justice for the lower class
Unfortunately, parts of the Constitution are blatantly ignored. The Fifth Amendment is supposed to protect against unreasonable search and seizure, yet civil forfeiture is common practice. The Thirteenth Amendment is supposed to outlaw slavery, but prisoners can be treated as slaves. The Second Amendment is supposed to protect one's right to own firearms, yet many places create laws that diminish that right (such as limits on ammo).
Some parts of the Constitution are still upheld (like the First), but many
Some parts of the Constitution are still upheld (like the First), but many others are outright ignored at times.
Only part of the First Amendment is being upheld, and even that is under assault by the con artist. The separation of church and state is clearly not being upheld. In fact, it borders on being outright ignored.
Sorry I must have missed that part in the constitution where it says that the Church and state are separate. Oh because it is not there.
What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I guess you forgot to read it before quoting it. Also whoever the con artist is (I am guessing the same person who told you that Church and state are separate in the constitution.) Please limit your accusations of assault on the constitution
The Thirteenth Amendment is supposed to outlaw slavery, but prisoners can be treated as slaves.
The 13th Amendment has an explicit exception for convicted criminals.
The 13th Amendment of the Constitution: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday December 30, 2019 @06:15PM (#59571844)
Oh, sweet child, THAT is an impressive level of ignorance. Story time, good buddy.
I was a victim of the travesty that is our "justice" system. I was accused of a crime with no evidence, held over a weekend until my arraignment the following Monday so I lost the job I had recently started, and although I was lucky enough to be allowed to pay bail, I was initially told I would not be eligible for a court appointed lawyer. You see, they do not give you one simply because YOU have no money to pay for a lawyer, they base it on your household income. So as a young man with roommates, I was denied as my "household" had enough income to afford an attorney. They set my next court date for almost three months from then, it was the soonest they could fit it, really "speedy," right? Fast forward to that date, by then I was no longer living with those roommates as I'd had to take a lower-income position after losing my previous job and started renting a room in a low-rent area. They asked me if I'd found a lawyer, and I told them truthfully I was unable to find a lawyer I could afford and asked if we could reevaluate my eligibility. They were able to do this that day and assigned a lawyer to me. My next court date would be a little over two months away. On the next court date, they asked me again if I had found a lawyer, at which time my assigned lawyer explained that the court had appointed him as my attorney, which the judge then told us there was no record of. Because of their paperwork snafu, the day was lost, but they assured me it would be fixed at my next court date another two months away from then. It was not. It was almost two years of delays, throughout which the only alternative option they offered was to go to trial without an attorney. Several times throughout this process they told me I was not eligible for a court-appointed attorney due to my household income, I told them not only was that information outdated but I have never had access to the funds of any other member of my household, and my attorney was always kindly reminding them they had, in fact, assigned him to me. Two whole years this went on, until I finally went to trial and the "witness" didn't show and I was acquitted. I won't go deep into the aftermath of this, suffice it to say the person who filed the false report did not go through nearly as much of a hassle as I did in court, they just paid a very small fine and were told to stay away from me.
The key points here? I was allowed to effectively buy my own release, but if I didn't have money I would have had to sit in jail that whole time. I was initially denied a court appointed attorney, not because of my own income, but that of my "household" as the courts expect anyone you live with to foot the bill for your legal expenses if you, yourself, are poor. And my "speedy" trial took two years to actually get underway, despite lasting only a few minutes, during which time I would've been stuck behind bars had I been unable to pay. Not only did all of this cost me every time I had to take a day off to go to court, the stress of having this go on for two years affected my health quite a bit and led to numerous medical bills. It is also worth noting this was not in some high-crime big city where the courts are inundated with one trial after another, it was just a small-ish town in the USA where the courts are usually empty by the time early afternoon rolls around.
You can evaluate "speedy" trials for yourself by going to a court arraignment session, they are typically open to the public and they generally have the next available court dates that can be assigned posted where everyone can see. I have never seen a next court date within a month, and in my experience most are closer to three. Three months might not sound like a long time, but if you can't afford the bail a judge sets for you that's three months behind bars where you can not work, pay your bills, care for family, or any of the many things we take for granted as "free" people. If you were in a lease or have a credit card, you will be
It's widely recognised outside the us, and proven valid by extensive evidence that the US problem with gun crime is nearly entirely caused by the ease of buying a gun. In other Western countries where guns are illegal this is still the cause of our gun crime and rates in Asia are far lower because no one, not even the cops can get guns easily.
And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
If they don't have money for bail then they sit there waiting for the trial. Occasionally there will be a rare humanitarian release without bail, but that's not common (unless you're rich, at which point it's assumed that you will return for the trial.) In quite a few cases defendants found guilty or pleading out will be sentenced to 'time served' simply because they've already sat in prison longer than
Unless it is for murder or something, the jail is not going to be willing to hold you pre-trial for very long. Nobody is paying for it, the county just eats the cost of holding you. No freakin' way that is happening. If you refuse to post bail, they'll release you anyway and write down "overcrowding," if they're crowded or not. Though they probably are.
And the fact is that you have a right to bail, they're required to lower it if you can't pay what they first set.
China is not managed well? (Score:-1)
Re: (Score:2)
He went to prison for embarrassing the Chinese government. If this happened in America or EU, then they would go to prison for performing unethical experiments on humans.
In modern times, for good or for bad there is a large process before we try something on humans. As the past has shown that there have been a lot of death, and often unjust selection on who to experiment on. And many are suffering from the consequences after the fact.
but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs an s (Score:0, Troll)
but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs an show trail.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs an show trail.
Most Americans can't afford a proper jury trial. They often can't even afford bail, so they sit in jail for years waiting for a trial date.
Much better to just take a plea deal for an immediate reduced sentence, whether you are guilty or not.
Per capita, America incarcerates four times as many people as China.
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:-1)
Hold up... are you actually under the impression that you need to PAY for a trial by jury in the US? And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
That's an impressive level of stupidity.
The sixth amendment to the constitution guarantees a citizen's right to a trial by jury regardless of personal finances and also provides a right to a "speedy" trial... which is further protected from delay by the speedy trial act of 1974.
We have a highly concentrated crime problem in this country, and one that's largely limited to high concentration population centers, and our high rates of incarceration in those areas reflect that reality. In Boston for example, 53% of the city’s gun violence occurs in less than 3% of the city’s intersections and streets... a full 68% of all homicides in this country occur in only 5% of the counties. The insinuation that America has an incarceration issue ignores the realities of the issue and, with China having roughly 43% of their population located outside of the cities, any mention of overall figures is disingenuous misinformation at best.
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:4, Informative)
You don't need to Pay for a jury trial... However if you want a layer who just wasn't picked out of a pool of available lawyers being paid a "charity rate" to cover you for any prolonged legal action, you are going to need to pay a lot more. If you get the court provided lawyer his interest is to get this job over with as quickly as possible so they can work on something more profitable. So they will probably just try to settle out of court, or get you to plead guilty and take a lighter punishment.
If you have a lot of money or chances on getting rewarded a lot of money, then you could get a legal team vs just a lawyer. To help defend you and make sure you get a more thorough trial.
Re: (Score:1)
Nearly everything you just said is bullshit...
Obviously if you have a lot of money then you can afford to pay for a higher level of service but it's absolutely false that a public defender's best interest is to get your case over with as quickly as possible to "work on something more profitable". A public defender works for the public defender's office and there is no profitable vs unprofitable case for them, they're getting paid the same for each case. The two disadvantages to public defenders are that the
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:5, Informative)
Nearly everything you just said is bullshit...
Much of what you are saying is wrong and horribly naive. So please don't cast aspersions on others.
A public defender works for the public defender's office
This is often not true. Lawyers in private practice are often asked, and sometimes ordered, to take on public defender duties. They are paid of course, but not as much as they make from their private clients.
The two disadvantages to public defenders are that they typically weren't successful enough in school to garner better job offers coming out of college or haven't distinguished themselves through their casework
That is the point. A PD is usually going to give you a 2nd rate defense. People with public defenders are more likely to be convicted or to be pushed into a lousy plea deal.
The richer you are, the more likely you are to be acquitted or to work out a "no-jail" plea deal.
it's more advantageous for everyone involved that you plea down to a lesser offense and move on with your life.
Indeed. But not all plea deals are equal, and whether you are guilty or innocent is mostly irrelevant. An innocent person who is acquitted at trial often has their life destroyed by pre-trial confinement, astronomical legal expenses that drain their pensions and home equity, career interruption, and ruined reputation. A quick plea deal for a reduced charge can avoid much of that.
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:4, Interesting)
What are the trials like in China that make them so much better?
I would not say that trials in China are "better", but they are better in some ways and worse in others.
The major problem with China's system is a lack of judicial independence. Judges are required to obey orders from the CCP. So someone convicted of a political crime is certainly going to be treated more fairly in America.
On the other hand, a normal quotidian criminal defendant of modest means is going to be treated more fairly in China.
America has an adversarial legal system. The prosecutor controls the investigation and has a vested interest in obtaining a conviction. The investigators are looking for incriminating evidence. If they accidentally stumble across exonerating evidence, they are legally required to turn it over to the defense, but they have plenty of incentive to avoid finding such evidence. The defense receives no public funding to conduct their own investigating, although rich people can pay for their own investigation.
China has an inquisitorial system and the court controls the investigation. The investigators are neutral and have no vested interest in either a conviction or acquittal. The investigators have no loyalty to either the prosecutor or the defense and seek out all the facts impartially, at least in theory.
IMO, the legal systems in both countries are deeply dysfunctional and unjust. I complain more about America's system because I live in America, I am an American citizen, and therefore my opinion should mean something. My opinion means nothing to China.
Re: (Score:2)
And you moved the goal post.
No not really, the original post was a bit of a hyperbole. We know that poor people have jury trials all the time. However for most people when given a public defendant will normally just try to get them with a reduced punishment. I went to contest a traffic ticket I got (running a red light), I first pleaded innocent, then the PD convinced me to plead guilty to "Parking on Pavement" and pay a fine. I didn't leave the court feeling that justice was served because I felt I to
Re: (Score:1)
>>Do you have evidence to suggest that any public defender has not represented their client to the best of their ability?
>Anything less than a good defense should be considered improper,
Reread question. We are already talking about a state certified profession. Subjective definitions like "good defense" is not a standard that can be addressed in any meaningful way. Everyone that is on the losing side of a "good defense" will argue it is not a good defense by fact it lost. Moreso, the bar exam alrea
Re: (Score:1)
>The investigators are looking for incriminating evidence
Evidence that can and should only be obtained by legal means. Is Parallel Construction legal in China? Is there such a concept of illegally obtain evidence?
> Inquisition vs advocate
Not sure that is a hard choice.
>, the legal systems in both countries are deeply dysfunctional and unjust.
Measured against perfect anything is dysfunctional and unjust. Anything will work "good enough" with enough power and inertia.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that prosecutors in the US have little incentive to follow their mandate to turn over exonerating evidence, I would bet that the Chinese inquisitors have even less desire to do anything other than obtain a clean, fast conviction. Which means putting away the suspect at hand. Anything else would take tons of extra time. You really think those investigators have the light caseloads that allow thorou
Re: (Score:1)
> However for most people when given a public defendant will normally just try to get them with a reduced punishment
Which, depending on the circumstance, is a good option and most likely the best option.
>bias towards on how much you can pay to win,
That is the norm and most common in addition to insider connection. Lawyers are expensive since they know the law and can work it to benefit themselves. Establishing a "fair" trial is a difficult thing to quantify and actualize in all circumstances. We have
Re: (Score:2)
I went to contest a traffic ticket I got (running a red light), I first pleaded innocent, then the PD convinced me to plead guilty to "Parking on Pavement" and pay a fine. I didn't leave the court feeling that justice was served because I felt I took the turn while the light just turned yellow.
This is why plea deals should not exist for criminal cases. If they don't think they have enough evidence, then they should just let you go. Justice is not served when a criminal gets 5 years instead of 10. Nor is it served if an innocent man is manipulated into accepting those 5 years while the criminal goes free.
Also confessions should be banned. And eye-witness testimony should be severely discounted in favor of camera footage and other physical evidence. The brain can conjure up all sorts hallucinations
Re: (Score:2)
A PD is usually going to give you a 2nd rate defense.
Not necessarily. Jobs are not obtained on qualifications alone. Who you know is also very important - possibly even more important. Just because one little sperm gets to fertilize the egg doesn't mean that all the other little sperms are defective...
Re: (Score:1)
Again, you're incorrect on every front.
Everything I said was factually accurate, irrespective of your ignorance on the matter or your desperate attempts at jaded dispersion of the justice system.
Lawyers in private practice are literally never ordered to take public defender cases... dumbass. The only circumstance under which a private practice lawyer can even be 'coerced' into such action is via a part of their own plea deal in which they offer to render services to the public defenders office in return for
Re: (Score:2)
I'd settle for a layer who can spell lawyer.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ha ha, good one. Next you'll be telling me that the law forbids any person from holding an office of profit or trust from accepting presents or emoluments from foreign states, and since the law forbids it, then it doesn't happen.
Re: (Score:1)
MOST of the injuries caused by crime happen in the BOARDROOM, and those criminals are almost never prosecuted
Re: (Score:1)
Hold up... are you actually under the impression that you need to PAY for a trial by jury in the US? And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
That's an impressive level of stupidity.
...
Wow, what a classic case of denial and a real nice fantasy, in truth, there's still little or no justice for the lower class
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, parts of the Constitution are blatantly ignored. The Fifth Amendment is supposed to protect against unreasonable search and seizure, yet civil forfeiture is common practice. The Thirteenth Amendment is supposed to outlaw slavery, but prisoners can be treated as slaves. The Second Amendment is supposed to protect one's right to own firearms, yet many places create laws that diminish that right (such as limits on ammo).
Some parts of the Constitution are still upheld (like the First), but many
Re: (Score:2)
Only part of the First Amendment is being upheld, and even that is under assault by the con artist. The separation of church and state is clearly not being upheld. In fact, it borders on being outright ignored.
Re: (Score:1)
What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I guess you forgot to read it before quoting it. Also whoever the con artist is (I am guessing the same person who told you that Church and state are separate in the constitution.) Please limit your accusations of assault on the constitution
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Thirteenth Amendment is supposed to outlaw slavery, but prisoners can be treated as slaves.
The 13th Amendment has an explicit exception for convicted criminals.
The 13th Amendment of the Constitution: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also kids. They can be forced to do things both by their parents and by their school. Mandatory "volunteering" projects come to mind.
Re:but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs a (Score:5, Interesting)
I was a victim of the travesty that is our "justice" system. I was accused of a crime with no evidence, held over a weekend until my arraignment the following Monday so I lost the job I had recently started, and although I was lucky enough to be allowed to pay bail, I was initially told I would not be eligible for a court appointed lawyer. You see, they do not give you one simply because YOU have no money to pay for a lawyer, they base it on your household income. So as a young man with roommates, I was denied as my "household" had enough income to afford an attorney. They set my next court date for almost three months from then, it was the soonest they could fit it, really "speedy," right? Fast forward to that date, by then I was no longer living with those roommates as I'd had to take a lower-income position after losing my previous job and started renting a room in a low-rent area. They asked me if I'd found a lawyer, and I told them truthfully I was unable to find a lawyer I could afford and asked if we could reevaluate my eligibility. They were able to do this that day and assigned a lawyer to me. My next court date would be a little over two months away. On the next court date, they asked me again if I had found a lawyer, at which time my assigned lawyer explained that the court had appointed him as my attorney, which the judge then told us there was no record of. Because of their paperwork snafu, the day was lost, but they assured me it would be fixed at my next court date another two months away from then. It was not. It was almost two years of delays, throughout which the only alternative option they offered was to go to trial without an attorney. Several times throughout this process they told me I was not eligible for a court-appointed attorney due to my household income, I told them not only was that information outdated but I have never had access to the funds of any other member of my household, and my attorney was always kindly reminding them they had, in fact, assigned him to me. Two whole years this went on, until I finally went to trial and the "witness" didn't show and I was acquitted. I won't go deep into the aftermath of this, suffice it to say the person who filed the false report did not go through nearly as much of a hassle as I did in court, they just paid a very small fine and were told to stay away from me.
The key points here? I was allowed to effectively buy my own release, but if I didn't have money I would have had to sit in jail that whole time. I was initially denied a court appointed attorney, not because of my own income, but that of my "household" as the courts expect anyone you live with to foot the bill for your legal expenses if you, yourself, are poor. And my "speedy" trial took two years to actually get underway, despite lasting only a few minutes, during which time I would've been stuck behind bars had I been unable to pay. Not only did all of this cost me every time I had to take a day off to go to court, the stress of having this go on for two years affected my health quite a bit and led to numerous medical bills. It is also worth noting this was not in some high-crime big city where the courts are inundated with one trial after another, it was just a small-ish town in the USA where the courts are usually empty by the time early afternoon rolls around.
You can evaluate "speedy" trials for yourself by going to a court arraignment session, they are typically open to the public and they generally have the next available court dates that can be assigned posted where everyone can see. I have never seen a next court date within a month, and in my experience most are closer to three. Three months might not sound like a long time, but if you can't afford the bail a judge sets for you that's three months behind bars where you can not work, pay your bills, care for family, or any of the many things we take for granted as "free" people. If you were in a lease or have a credit card, you will be
Re: but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs (Score:2)
> So as a young man with roommates, I was denied as my "household" had enough income to afford an attorney.
Bullshit.
Re: but in the usa will get an real jury trail vs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that people are required to sit in jail for YEARS waiting on trial based upon financial resources??
If they don't have money for bail then they sit there waiting for the trial. Occasionally there will be a rare humanitarian release without bail, but that's not common (unless you're rich, at which point it's assumed that you will return for the trial.) In quite a few cases defendants found guilty or pleading out will be sentenced to 'time served' simply because they've already sat in prison longer than
Re: (Score:2)
Some jurisdictions allow OR bonds. They should probably do that more often.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it is for murder or something, the jail is not going to be willing to hold you pre-trial for very long. Nobody is paying for it, the county just eats the cost of holding you. No freakin' way that is happening. If you refuse to post bail, they'll release you anyway and write down "overcrowding," if they're crowded or not. Though they probably are.
And the fact is that you have a right to bail, they're required to lower it if you can't pay what they first set.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you're homeless, you want to be in jail. At least there's food and a roof over your head.