Corrupt From Top to Bottom
Note: Nothing I hadn’t already come across in the legal journals, but a damning indictment of the American criminal justice system. What makes it particularly scary is:
a) Like everything else American, it is coming here. The Judges still disapprove of plea bargaining, but there is anecdotal evidence that some police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service are skilled in its ways.
b) Thanks to the unequal Extradition Treaty we have with the Americans, any one of us can be dragged off there to face trial on trumped up charges. This has already happened, and may happen more in the future.
Chris Tame always used to insist that written constitutions and bills of rights were irrelevant. Given a liberal order, they were unnecessary. Without a liberal order, they would be dead letters. Looking at America, I increasingly believe he was right. SIG
Every public institution in the United States and most private ones are corrupt.
To tell this story would be a multi-book task. Lawrence Stratton and I have written one small volume of the story. Our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, now with two editions and multiple printings, documents the corruption of law in the United States and has been cited in rulings by Federal District and Appeal Court judges.
Law is just one public institution, but it is a corner stone of society. When law goes, everything goes.
Only about 4 percent of federal felony cases go to trial. Almost all, 96 percent, are settled by negotiated plea bargains. Law & Order Conservatives condemn plea bargains for the wrong reason. They think plea bargains let criminals off easy.
In fact, plea bargains are used by prosecutors to convict the innocent along with the guilty. Plea bargains eliminate juries and time-consuming trials, that is, plea bargains eliminate all work on the part of prosecutors and police and lead to high conviction rates for prosecutors, the main indicator of their career success. Once upon a time, prosecutors pursued justice. They carefully examined police investigations and only indicted suspects whose conviction they thought could be obtained by a jury. Sloppy police work was discarded.
No more. Once indicted and provided with a lawyer, the defendant learns that his lawyer has no intention of defending him before a jury. The lawyer knows that the chances of getting even a totally innocent defendant found not guilty is slim to non-existent. Prosecutors, with the consent of judges, suborn perjury for which they are permitted to pay with money and dropped charges against real criminals, and prosecutors routinely withhold evidence favorable to the defendant. If a prosecutor detects that a defendant intends to fight, the prosecutor piles on charges until the defendant’s lawyer convinces the defendant that no jury will dismiss all of so many charges and that the one or two that the jury convicts on will bring a much longer sentence than the lawyer can negotiate. The lawyer tells the defendant that if you go to trail, you will be using up the time of prosecutors and judges, and the inconvenience that you cause them will send you away for many a year.
In some state and local courts it is still possible on occasion to get an almost fair trial if you can afford an attorney well enough connected to provide it. But even in non-federal courts the system is stacked against the defendant. Many prisons have been privatized, and privatized prisons require high incarceration rates in order to be profitable. The same holds for juvenile detention prisons. Not long ago two Pennsylvania judges were convicted for accepting payments from private detention prisons for each kid they sentenced.
Judges prefer plea bargains despite the fact that plea bargains amount to self-incrimination, because plea bargains dispense with time-consuming trials that cause backed-up and crowded court dockets. Trials also demand far more work on the part of a judge than accepting a plea bargain.
The fact of the matter is that in America today you are expected to convict yourself. Even your lawyer expects it. The torture is not physical; it is psychological. The system is severely biased against the defendant. Conviction by a jury brings a much heavier sentence than conviction by a deal that the defendant’s attorney negotiates with the prosecutor’s office. All the prosecutor wants is a conviction. Give him his conviction for his record as an effective prosecutor, and you get off lighter.
The injustice lies in the fact that the rule applies to the innocent as well as to the guilty.The prosecutor and often the judge do not care whether you are innocent or guilty, and your lawyer knows that it does not matter to the outcome.
The police have learned that such a small number of cases go to trial that their evidence is seldom tested in court. Consequently, often police simply look for someone who might have committed the crime based on past criminal records, select someone with a record, and offer him or her up as the perpetrator of the crime. This police practice is one explanation for high recidivism rates.
In the totally corrupt American criminal justice (sic) system, anyone indicted, no matter how innocent, is almost certain to be convicted.
Let’s take the case of Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman. Judging by the reported evidence in the media and testimony by those familiar with the case, Don Siegelman, a popular Democratic governor of Alabama was a victim of a Karl Rove operation to instruct Democrats that their political party would not be permitted a comeback in executive authority in the Republican South.
There is no doubt but that the Alabama Republican newspapers and TV stations are political tools. And there is little doubt that former Republican US Attorneys Alice Martin and Leura Canary and Republican US federal district court judge Mark Fuller were willing participants in Karl Rove’s political campaign to purge the South of popular democrats.
Republican US district court judge Mark Fuller was arrested in Atlanta this month for beating his wife in an Atlanta hotel. The judge, in whose honor courts must rise, was charged with battery and taken to the Fulton County jail at 2:30AM Sunday morning August 10. If you look at the mug shot of Mark Fuller, he doesn’t inspire confidence. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10748 Fuller was a bitter enemy of Siegelman and should have recused himself from Siegelman’s trial, but ethical behavior required more integrity than Fuller has.
Among many, Scott Horton, a professor of law at Columbia University has provided much information in Harper’s magazine involving the corruption of Fuller and the Republican prosecuting attorneys, Alice Martin and Leura Canary. See: http://harpers.org/blog/2008/02/another-abusive-prosecution-by-alice-martin/ and http://harpers.org/blog/2008/02/cbs-more-prosecutorial-misconduct-in-siegelman-case-alleged/ and http://harpers.org/blog/2007/08/judge-fuller-and-the-trial-of-don-siegelman/ andhttp://harpers.org/blog/2007/06/siegelman-sentenced-riley-rushes-to-washington/ andhttp://harpers.org/blog/2007/10/karl-rove-linked-to-siegelman-prosecution/ andhttp://harpers.org/blog/2007/12/karl-rove-william-canary-and-the-siegelman-case/ andhttp://harpers.org/blog/2008/02/rove-and-siegelman/ and http://harpers.org/blog/2007/08/the-pork-barrel-world-of-judge-mark-fuller/ and see OpEdNews February 6, 2012, “Why did Karl Rove and his GOP Thugs target Don Siegelman in Alabama?” and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/why-is-don-siegelman_b_3094147.html
Google the case and you will see everything but justice.
The Republican frame-up of Siegelman is so obvious that various courts have overturned some of the bogus convictions. But the way “justice” works in America makes courts fearful of discrediting the criminal justice (sic) system by coming down hard on an obvious frame-up. To make the fact obvious that federal courts are used for political reasons is detrimental to the myth of justice in which gullible Americans believe.
Siegelman’s innocence is so obvious that 113 former state attorneys general have come out in his support. These attorneys general together with federal judges and members of Congress have written to Obama and to US attorney general Eric Holder urging Siegelman’s release from prison. Instead of releasing the innocent Siegelman, Obama and Holder have protected the Republican frameup of a Democratic governor.
Remember, what did President George W. Bush do when his vice president’s chief aid was convicted for the felony of revealing the name of a secret CIA operative? Bush wiped out the sentence of Cheney’s convicted operative. He remained convicted, but served no sentence.
Remember, President George H. W. Bush’s administration pardoned the neoconservative criminals in the Reagan administration who were convicted by the Reagan administration for crimes related to Iran-Contra.
So why hasn’t the Obama regime pardoned former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman who unlike other pardoned parties is actually innocent? Siegleman was bringing the Democratic Party back in the corrupt Republican state of Alabama. He was a successful governor who would have been US senator, and Karl Rove apparently exterminated him politically in order to protect the Republican hold on the South.
It is extremely ironic that the formerly solid Democratic South, plundered, looted, and raped by Republican armies, votes Republican. If anything shows the insouciance of a people, the South’s Republican vote is the best demonstration. The South votes for a party that destroyed the South and its culture. There is no greater evidence of a people totally ignorant of, or indifferent to, their history than the Southern people who vote Republican.
Obama can’t pardon Siegelman, which Justice requires, because Obama cannot confront the self-protective mechanism in the Justice (sic) Department. Obama is too weak of a person to stand up for Justice. Obama has acquiesced to the Republican and DOJ frame-up of a popular Democratic Governor.
Justice in America? It is not worth 5 cents on the New York stock exchange.
If you want to stand up for justice, click here: http://www.gofundme.com/Railroading-Don-Siegelman
Police are as remote from concerns of justice as are prosecutors. Generally speaking, while there might be a few exceptions, the ranks of the police seem to be filled with violent psychopaths. The police seldom show any self-control and their violent nature makes police a great threat to society. Invariably, police bring violence to the scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc
Killing unarmed black men seems to be a police specialty. http://truth-out.org/news/item/25815-lapd-refusal-to-release-information-on-in-custody-deaths-feeds-community-mistrust
Assaults and killings by police seldom make it beyond the local news. The lack of national coverage of crimes committed by police against the public leaves Americans with the incorrect impression that the use of excessive force by police is an occasional and unfortunate result but not a real problem. Police apologists say that an occasional mistake is the price of being safe. But police violence is an expression of police culture, not an unfortunate mistake, and what we hear is only the tip of the iceberg.http://rare.us/story/5-reasons-the-police-brutality-in-ferguson-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/
The large number of violent acts that police commit against members of the public are not entirely the fault of the police. It is well known that bullies and psychopaths are attracted to the power over others conveyed by a police badge. Considering this known fact, police should receive training in anger management. Instead, they are trained to regard the public as an enemy against whom the police should take no chances. Police are trained to subdue a suspect with violence and question the suspect later when the suspect is under control in jail. This procedure means that even those who are totally innocent bear all the risks of being confronted by police.
Governments, media, and citizens are also responsible. They have allowed police to be militarized and to be inappropriately trained. Indeed, city, county, state, and federal governments have removed all barriers to the use of excessive force by police. Handed such power, the police use it.
In response to my column about Ferguson, former police officers wrote to me to report that they left the police force because they could not accept the culture of violence that is now ingrained in police departments. What these former police officers could not accept causes no problem for the Fox “News” talking heads. http://rare.us/story/jon-stewart-returns-with-powerful-ferguson-monologue-aimed-at-fox-news/
Can police departments be cleansed of their violent culture? Can prosecutors serve justice instead of career? Can Fox “News” talking heads cease being racists? Don’t hold your breath.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
PCR is like a very slow rather than a stopped clock. He is right several times more than twice a day but is still very often way OTT.
Here he is correct about the US “justice” system–although his banging the drum for southern Democrats is of zero interest in the UK and tripe (our own Paul Marks has pointed out they were the party of the KKK etc).
This is from Lew Rockwell’s site and tho’ Lew is generally sound he takes the “enemy of my enemy” bit way too far. He has on articles from scum like Pilger and Chomsky etc. He will give space to anybody who is against the US govt without regard to the fact that some of them are supporters of even worse crap. Agreed the Federal Tyranny is a bigger threat at this time than a dickhead like Chomsky but that does not mean he should not be a bit more keen on enlisting only true friends of Liberty.
As Paul Newman said to the late Lauren Bacall (in the P I movie Harper/The Moving Target 1966) “Your husband keeps lousy company Mrs Sampson. As bad as there is in L A–and that’s as bad as there is.”
Corroboration, if that is the word, may be found in this speech (the speaker also has articles on LRC): https://tinyurl.com/ll6s6h7
The American Criminal Justice system (especially the Federal one) is indeed awful – with its “plea bargains” and so on.
However, this article is written by a lunatic – the 9/11 “Truther” Paul Craig Roberts. And that means nothing in it (about Alabama, or about anything else) can be taken on trust. It is like talking with green ink user about a local dispute – the person may talk a lot of sense (make all sorts of good points) and then start telling you about the alien space ship that is “really” at the bottom of it all.
Sean Gabb specialises in digging up these people (as part of his Performance Art approach to politics) – such as the “White Nationalist” bloke he found to write a review of the Atlas Shrugged film.
Do not tell me that Sean picked the “White Nationalist” because he was an expert film reviewer, any more than he is publishing Paul Craig Robers (a good economist before he went nuts) here because is an expert on the Criminal Justice system
What Sean actually thought was “Oh good a loony – he will say lots of nice whacky things”, this Sean thinks is a clever thing to push, really it is pathetic.
For the record…….
Officer Wilson had his face (including his left eye socket) smashed in Ferguson Missouri – by Mr Brown.
Private companies do run some American prisons – but the idea they control the courts is a level of delusion worthy of Hollywood.
No the American media is not controlled by the Republican party (that is like saying the BBC is controlled by UKIP).
But then we are also told that Barack Obama and Erik Holder are involved in the Republican plot also. All working together with (boo-hiss) “Karl Rove” and, of course, the Tooth Fairy.
Columbia University, Harpers, and the Huffington Post are all leftist sources – this is like citing articles in the Guardian.
And Paul Craig Roberts seems to have two things against the Republican Party in the case of Alabama.
That it ended slavery in the 1860s (and was the party that opposed lynching and so on – with such Presidents as Warren Harding and Ike) and that it is the party that keeps down taxes and government spending in Alabama and other States now.
There is, of course, no evidence that the Republicans are more “corrupt” than the Democrats – they just (in a State government context) spend less of the money of the taxpayers. This is why (before he went nuts – 9/11 “truther” and so on) Paul Craig Roberts supported the Republicans.
Nor can Paul Craig Roberts really be blamed for what he writes here – as he is (as I have already pointed out) a nutcase.
But Sean Gabb can (and should) be blamed.
Sean is not nuts – he digs these people up and publishes their stuff for reasons of personal amusement. And because he (Sean Gabb) has a deep hatred of the United States and will push just about anyone (even a nutcase) who has bad things to say about the United States.
Mr Ecks – yes good comment (now I have read it) and a lot shorter and more to the point than mine.
And yes Sean has picked this stuff up from the Lew Rockwell site.
How to discredit the libertarian cause in the “best” Rothbardian way. It destroyed Ron Paul.
I hope it does not do the same to Rand Paul.
In reply to Paul:
1) Yes, Roberts is a nutcase.
2) The claim that Wilson’s eye socket was fractured appears to have been a rumor floated by unnamed “police sources.” It does appear to be true that Wilson received treatment for “facial injuries.” Whether those injuries were inflicted by Brown, or whether Wilson had someone work him over a little in the several days between the shooting and the time the claim was made that he had been injured is an open question.
3) It would indeed be a stretch to assert that “private” prison companies “control the courts.” Both those companies and the unions representing prison guards do, however, spend a great deal of money lobbying in favor of “enhanced sentencing” laws, contributing to the campaigns of “tough” judges and, in at least some cases, just outright bribing judges to fill prison beds (in a recent Pennsylvania case, two judges were caught and convicted for receiving payment from a “private” company operating a juvenile detention facility — these two judges had a marked tendency to reject plea bargains and prosecutorial probation recommendations and it turned out they received a bribe for every kid they sent to the facility).
I became interested in the plea bargain scam after I got caught in it.
About ten years ago, I fell behind in child support after paying faithfully for ten years before that when my primary “employer” (I was a self-employed contractor, but one client represented the bulk of my income) went bankrupt owing me months of back pay. It took me awhile to recover. I was actually catching back up when my ex-wife decided it would be more fun to ambush me than to get the money quickly.
My intent was to plead not guilty and take the case to trial. The statute required intent to evade payment, and I could demonstrate that it was a matter of simply not having had the money.
The prosecutor told me if I wanted to go to trial, fine — she would ask the judge to revoke my bail and he would because “he always gives me whatever I ask for” (not an idle boast; I had watched the judge do exactly that in case after case for four hours immediately before the plea offer was made); then every time my case came back up on the docket, she’d request a continuance and get that too, and I’d sit in jail until I was ready to plead guilty.
I ended up taking the deal, because I frankly couldn’t afford to sit in jail for months on end.
I’ve seen several statistics from several sources on the subject and they all are fairly close:
– Around 92% of criminal charges are resolved by plea bargain;
– Of the remaining 8%, 3/4ths result in conviction.
On that much, Roberts is right. The US “justice” system has continuously evolved toward the end of getting guilty pleas and convictions, not toward the end of reaching the truth.
A degree of moral corruption unknown as yet here – but gradually coming across the Atlantic.
Indeed. This is beyond terms like “problematic”. And as others have said, we seem to be going down the same road.
The scummy nature of US persecutors is also becoming increasingly obvious Like the judgeboy scum, unless they commit, publicly, acts of egregious villainy, they are untouchable. Several of them have now been found to have sent to prison for several decades, persons whom they KNEW (ie had the evidence on their desks and kept it from the defence–a supposedly illegal act in itself) were innocent. There are few mechanisms in US law to bring these turds down and they protect each other. With vile political scum at the top and a corrupt triumvirate of judges/persecutors and brutal, lard-arsed cops working the system from below it is no wonder the American justice system is tottering on the edge of ruin.
“Killing unarmed black men seems to be a police speciality”…. I don’t think so.
Armed black men shooting other black men, either armed or unarmed (and white men and women for that matter) seems to be much more of a speciality over there in the states – which the police are unfortunately left to deal with.
Considering the disproportionate crime rates amongst this group, it would hardly be surprising if disproportionate numbers of blacks were indeed shot in the process of arrest or trying to avoiding arrest.
I resent that the article writer implies that the police (which will comprise of a majority of white men) are deliberately, callously or nonchalantly shooting ‘unarmed’ black people for no reason.
I also resent the racial grievance-mongering of blacks and liberals that blames white people for their own sorry situation when it is often both blacks and liberals who have engineered the very kinds of attitudes, conditions and societies that are dysfunctional no matter where these ingredients combine.
As for Sean Gabb (and the criticism often laid against him), I think that he likes to look at all sorts of angles to the world, finds contrary things and contrary viewpoints interesting and challenging – perhaps much more challenging and interesting than just sticking the horse-blinkers on and marching down a strict path whilst clasping a copy of Atlas Shrugged under one arm.
It is good to throw up challenges to the site and also to learn how libertarianism is seen and understood by others, including the case of an alleged “white nationalist” who did a review of Atlas Shrugged.
I am not too sure which one was meant, perhaps I have not seen that one – but the recent book review of ‘The Break’ which scorned Ayn Rand and her Atlas Shrugged was a good read and something which I thought pulled out some justified critique.
And ‘critique’ is not the same thing as ‘hatred’. Which is why it is rather confusing as to why Sean keeps being blasted as “Anti American”, or “Anti America”.
Is America perfect? Is it some kind of bastion of all righteousness and good? Are their actions and ways of doing things always ‘for the best’ and the ‘betterment’ of themselves and the wider world?
Should the actions of the leaders and the attitudes of die-hard ‘patriotards’ allow us to be boxed into such a confined space where you’re not supposed to condemn the country, the state, or the attitude of vast swathes of a populace that may think it is their duty to meddle in international affairs, ‘globalise’, monopolise, and brand the world in their image, and so on?
Or perhaps not criticise them when they work against their own constitution and principles – such as government infringements on liberties and justice, or when liberals demand that gun ownership is to be abolished, or that there ought to be speech crimes?
America, Americans, in particular the mechanics of them as a ‘superpower’ can often need to be challenged, mocked, undermined, criticised – just like everybody else. It does not mean one is “Anti-American” or “Anti-America”, it just means that certain aspects of it should be scrutinised and are not always agreeable.
There is much (a hell of a lot) I don’t like about the actions of the British government, whether it be policy domestic or foreign. There are lots of things I am not happy with in terms of some of our own population.
To criticise it, to criticise them, is not being some kind of traitor or turncoat, or being “un-British”. In contrary, I think it is being more British having an inquiring and contrary attitude to life that always questions things.
I love Americans and much of the general American ways of life, but that does not blind me to the fact that their leaders and actions that might be done in the name of America (or for the sake of America) are always laudable.
There is nothing wrong at all with Sean having such digs and distaste at those elements of it.
Thomas – I agree with you about “plea bargaining” (an utterly corrupt system).
It is common in English law now to (although under a different name) – it used to be far less common in Scots Law (and unknown in German law), but it is spreading…….
We disagree about Officer Wilson and Ferguson.
But then you are an anarchist – and I am not.
I tend to give police officers the benefit of the doubt (although I do know of some corrupt ones) – and you do not.
It is not possible (at this point) to tell which of us is correct.
The honest thing to say is that “we do not know”” – as neither of us were there that day.
Lastly on Paul Craig Roberts.
If he actually does have mental health problems (and I suspect that he does) then I was very unkind to call him a “nutcase” and a “loony”.
I apologise for that – and I hope Mr Roberts recovers his mental health.
It should be pointed out that the vast majority of people who are charged (in any Western Criminal Justice system) are, in fact, guilty. The television lawyer show view (where the obvious suspect is nearly always innocent) is the opposite of the truth – in reality the obvious suspect is usually guilty. The problem is that both police and officials (including judges) become JADED – as they are dealing with guilty people (all day, every day) they assume EVERYONE is guilty- and regard anyone who protests their innocence as a lying irritant. It is the purpose of legal safeguards (such as those in the Common Law tradition) to try and counter balance this “jading” effect – and that is why the removal of legal safeguards (in the name of “speeding up the process” or whatever) is so terrible.
It is not that the people involved set out with the intention (when they are writing the new rules) of sending innocent people to prison. They sincerely believe that innocent people do not exit (after all they are used to meeting guilty people – people at their very worse, day in day out)- which is actually worse.
A classic example is the various changes made to fraud trials in England and Wales (I do not know the Scots law position),
Concerned with “low conviction rates” the government (some years ago) changed the rules so that (now) more than 90% of people charged are convicted (at least of something – even if not what they were originally charged with).
Spot the flaw in the thinking? The assumption was “guilty people are getting off” – not “we are charging a lot of people who turn out to be innocent”.
One of the problems with the American system (at least at the Federal level – but in many States also) is that the punishments are absurdly harsh (not in proportion to the offence) the assumption being “oh they will bid down the punishment in the plea bargaining process”.
No, no, no. – the punishment should be in proportion to the offence ( “deals” should not be assumed when writing the statutes).
As for prison – the problem goes all the way back to John Jay (actually one of my favourite Founding Fathers – now there statement that will be used against me).
As Governor of New York State John Jay pressed for the establishment of a prison system (already a fashion in late 18th century legal thinking – in Europe as well as the English speaking world) rather than the traditional New York practice of hanging for a severe offence and flogging for a less severe offence.
Governor Jay argued (quite correctly) that capital punishment (hanging) was being used for offences that were not severe enough to rightfully warrant it – however, a more logical response would have been to apply corporal punishment (flogging) to these offences (rather than hanging the criminals – mostly not the sort of people who pay fines or compensation awards) – not to press for a new “prison system”.
Governor Jay hoped that prisons would “reform” criminals – two centuries of experience have shown that he (and the criminology thought of his time generally) was mistaken (radically mistaken).
“So your only complaint against John Jay (the “fiend” who said “those who own the land should rule it”) is that he was too liberal….. you hanging and flogging Tory beast”.
I suspect – yes, guilty as charged. When the accused is actually guilty – I repeat I utterly reject the modern system (both in the United States and in England and Wales) where guilt is (unofficially) assumed.
I see nothing wrong with (for example) that American tourist being flogged in Singapore – he went out and damaged other peoples’ cars (quite deliberately – for fun). I do not see why the taxpayers of Singapore should have to pay to keep him in prison – and I do not think that a fine would mean anything to wealthy young waster like that.
As for criminalising civil matters – such as the infamous “Family Courts” which I believe Thomas has experience of, I do not know where to start with these.
They appear to get all the principles of classical jurisprudence (both Common Law and Roman Law), tear them up, and through them in the bin.
By the way, the Northamptonshire Regiment were known as the “steel backs” from the regimental tradition of not crying out whilst being flogged.
That must take great self discipline – I do not believe I could manage it.
That’s interesting. It occurs to me that some people say it is possible to hypnotize yourself into not feeling the pain, or to get yourself into some sort of “dissociative” state where you feel it but it doesn’t seem to be happening to you. Presumably the Indian fakirs and the people who walk on hot coals do something like that (although I think I’ve also heard that the hot-coals people walk in some way such that they have very little contact with the coals. Or something).
I’ve read that some rape or physical-abuse victims are able to “observe from outside themselves.” No idea if it’s true.
Lot of stories out there. Not an anthropologist! Me, I’m with you. Childbirth is no picnic, and flogging would be worse. At least once you’re in deep pain, you know the kid will pop soon and it will be over.
And then you can DROWN it. *Evil, evil laugh, wrings hands delightedly — serves the moppet right.*