Question about American justice system - Page 2

elwoodblues · #11 05-13-2005, 01:07 AM

The tenor of your post suggests that you have a problem with plea bargains.

Think of all cases as a gambling proposition. The prosecutor is the one gambling. He is faced with the following proposition:
100% chance of having a nasty killer put behind bars for 25 years or an 85% chance of the death penalty (85% is just a random argument to demonstrate the thought process.) Absent some compelling circumstances to the contrary, it is the smart decision is almost always to plea the case down. While that might also have a positive impact on the career of the prosecutor, I would suggest that factors in marginally at best.

Felix_Nietsche · #12 05-13-2005, 02:48 PM

Yes....he did have a poor lawyer. A court appointed lawyer who had no interest going to trial.

He was also a coward for allowing himself to be bullied but I suppose the THREAT of a long prison sentence was too scary for him and he caved...

Felix_Nietsche · #13 05-13-2005, 02:58 PM

"The tenor of your post suggests that you have a problem with plea bargains."
************************************************** ******
Not at all. Plea bargains save the govt a lot of $$$.
I do have a problem with DAs who get drunk with their power and abuse their position.

I'll give you an example. Ann Coulter was assaulted with pies at ASU while giving a speech. The whole inicident was captured on VIDEO. Ann Coulture pressed charges. The DAs office dismissed the charges claiming lack of evidence because they needed Ann Coulture to arrive at a pre trial hearing to get a conviction. The DA claimed they told Ann and she did not show up. This is a lie on many fronts.

1. Ann claimed she was NEVER contacted by the DA's office.
2. Ann stated in her columns she was 100% committed to prosecuting these two young men and she would do whatever was needed to make sure they were punished.
3. The entire incident was captured on video so Ann's testimony was not even needed to get a conviction.
4. Two ASU students captured these two men so their testimony alone would have been enough to convict.

This was a case of a Democrat DA using his power to dismiss charges against two young men assaulting a Republican editorialist....

elwoodblues · #14 05-13-2005, 04:12 PM

Just try to find another criminal case where the victim of the crime didn't testify (unless of course they are dead.) It doesn't happen.

[ QUOTE ]
This was a case of a Democrat DA using his power to dismiss charges against two young men assaulting a Republican editorialist....

[/ QUOTE ]

and has nothing to do with Plea bargains.

elwoodblues · #15 05-13-2005, 04:14 PM

why do I suspect that either you haven't been told the full story from your friend or that you aren't telling the full story to us? I HIGHLY suspect that your friend was much more aware of and participated in the dealings of the company than you are suggesting.

MtSmalls · #16 05-13-2005, 05:45 PM

JaxA$$ continues to show his own stupidity. A) All of the judges that are appointed by the president are appellate court and higher, and thus have no influence on plea bargains or the 'overloaded' courts. Judges in those courts are elected or appointed locally. B) Congress has approved 95% of the more than 200 judges nominated by President Bush in the last five years, leaving only TEN that have been rejected. I seriously doubt this has had any significant impact on the number of cases that have been delayed or dismissed at the Appellate Court level.

HDPM · #17 05-13-2005, 05:49 PM

all federal district judges are presidential appointments with senate confirmation. Any lifetime appointment to the federal bench is a presidentiakl appointment. Bankruptcy judges or federal magistrates aren't. State judges vary by state in terms of election/appointment.

Felix_Nietsche · #18 05-13-2005, 06:38 PM

Believe what you want to believe. I can't control that.
The fellow died two years out of getting out of prison. He was an expert card player and one of his funniest prison stories was a surprise locker inspection where the guards discover a large cache of cigarettes in his prison locker. Leo did not smoke but cigarettes were the currency in the prison and he amassed a small fortune in prison currency...

But common sense will tell you that when people engage in a criminal enterprise, the LESS PEOPLE that know about it the better chance to get away with the crime. For these scam artist to hire a small army of $10/hour workers AND to inform theses worker the business is a CRIMINAL SCAM defies logic. IF YOU DO THINK IT IS LOGICAL for scam artists to tell their $10/hour workers that the whole business is a criminal operation , then may I suggest you probably believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well.

Also why work for $10/hour and risk prison when there are lots of $10 hour jobs where there is no risk of prison? Leo was a educated man and he was not dumb enough to risk prison in exchange for $10/hour...

elwoodblues · #19 05-14-2005, 01:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But common sense will tell you that when people engage in a criminal enterprise, the LESS PEOPLE that know about it the better chance to get away with the crime. For these scam artist to hire a small army of $10/hour workers AND to inform theses worker the business is a CRIMINAL SCAM defies logic. IF YOU DO THINK IT IS LOGICAL for scam artists to tell their $10/hour workers that the whole business is a criminal operation , then may I suggest you probably believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense also tells me that the people whose scheme it was to sell items over the phone and then not deliver them might not have been the smartest criminals in the world...thus, I don't give them a whole lot of credit in the "it would be dumb to involve too many people" department.

All I'm saying is that the story doesn't pass the smell test...I can't imagine them going after low-level employees. I can't imagine an attorney who wouldn't fight it. Maybe it happened the way you are relaying it...I just doubt it.

PhatTBoll · #20 05-14-2005, 02:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But common sense will tell you that when people engage in a criminal enterprise, the LESS PEOPLE that know about it the better chance to get away with the crime. For these scam artist to hire a small army of $10/hour workers AND to inform theses worker the business is a CRIMINAL SCAM defies logic. IF YOU DO THINK IT IS LOGICAL for scam artists to tell their $10/hour workers that the whole business is a criminal operation , then may I suggest you probably believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense also tells me that the people whose scheme it was to sell items over the phone and then not deliver them might not have been the smartest criminals in the world...thus, I don't give them a whole lot of credit in the "it would be dumb to involve too many people" department.

All I'm saying is that the story doesn't pass the smell test...I can't imagine them going after low-level employees. I can't imagine an attorney who wouldn't fight it. Maybe it happened the way you are relaying it...I just doubt it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't imagine a lazy or uninterested court-appointed counsel making a quick deal so he can be done with it? Not saying you're necessarily wrong about your misgivings about Felix's post, but there are lots of shitty attorneys out there. I should know, I'll be one in August [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]