The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Paul Craig Roberts ArchiveBlogview
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[Filtered by Reply Thread]
  1. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Polls typically show that two of the most distrusted categories of people are politicians and lawyers. Judges are a combination of both. They’re no Solomons. People become lawyers for pecuniary motives so what sort of moral fiber can one expect from such mercenaries? Power is a corrupting influence for most people and that holds true for those with a badge. Throw in a culture of impunity and mutual backscratching along with a ‘no snitching’ policy and this is what you get. The whole thing is a business that has all these parasites making a good living from it, just a conveyor belt machine feeding the goods into it. It’s not a justice system it’s a money machine; anybody who gets sucked into it is sure to lose.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The article was the best I have read by PCR but your comment is empty and silly. True many lawyers are neither competent or honest and the idea of judges and prosecutors being elected appals me but your characterisation of people's motives for becoming lawyers is crude and ignorant. Many aspire to ensure society enjoys the rule of law in its traditional sense.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    Lawyers are disliked and distrusted, often justifiably. Back in 1969, Murray Teigh Bloom wrote "The Trouble With Lawyers," in which he made this salient statement: "The law--which is made by lawyers, administered by lawyers, and adjudged by lawyers--is inevitably protective of the stupid, lazy, and inept practitioner."

    Of course, there are able, principled lawyers out there--Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Napolitano et al. come to mind--but there are also cretins like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Bill and Hillary Clinton. . . .

    Judges? Nothing inherently noble about them. As the saying goes, a judge is a lawyer who knew a politician.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/proberts/the-justice-system-is-criminal/#comment-1748648
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Occam’s Razor.

    The justice system may be far from ideal, but if the US didn’t have the black population, would things be so bad?

    We can blame the system only so much.

    It’s like what Robert Weissberg wrote about education. US education may be far from ideal and could do more, but the main problem is there are too many blacks messing things up.

    Proper Leftism focuses our attention on the needs of the people, but dogmatic leftism fixates on the ‘poor’ as helpless victims of the system that is always wrong.

    But even if the noblest people ran the entire criminal system, the black problem would remain just the same.

    • Replies: @Steel T Post
    I concur with Priss; today's policing and Justice are brutal because brute force is the only way to effectively deal with black behavior. Now that blacks are our legal equals, we all get the brutal legal treatment, lest the progressive's pets complain of racism.

    Eugene "Bull" Connor was right.
  3. So many “tough” investigators and jurists glommed on to the public teat yet none with cojones enough to take on Pizzagate which has managed to slip under the wire without a thorough investigation ever taking place. O America, I weep for thee.

    • Replies: @Anon
    You're going to be weeping for a long time, indeed.
  4. That famous statue of lady Justice depicts her as blindfolded … we were always taught that that is because justice is “blind,” which was meant to mean imprtial. What is described here can only be one of two things: Justice has blinded itself to what it is passing judgment on, or Justice is blindfolded because it is now held hostage to the base morals of mere mortals who would be gods.

    • Replies: @res
    In my snarky moments I say something like: It's a good thing Lady Justice is blindfolded. Otherwise she would weep at the things that happen daily in her name.

    Then there is the "Criminal Injustice System"...

    P.S. Sorry for the low SNR, but this topic gets me cranky. The big problem is I think Churchill's "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" is all too applicable as an analogy to our legal system.
  5. PCR is unfair to juries. There are cases where juries succumb to hysteria, but there are a LOT MORE cases where juries understand and defeat an evil persecutor. This is especially true with self-defense. Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug, but juries nearly always overrule the persecutor.

    • Replies: @crobert
    What unbelievable ignorance! Only 3 out of 100 cases ever reach a jury, and almost always the idiot jurors convict. The stupid fools are patriotic and trust the system.
    , @Joe Franklin

    PCR is unfair to juries. There are cases where juries succumb to hysteria, but there are a LOT MORE cases where juries understand and defeat an evil persecutor. This is especially true with self-defense. Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug, but juries nearly always overrule the persecutor.

     

    Conversely, just one SJW activist on a jury can get a case thrown out because the SJW juror refuses to convict another SJW activist defendant no matter the evidence is to convict.

    Afro-black jurors have done such ignoble things for Afro criminal defendants so many times, that they now have a label for it: Bronx Jury.

    Most crimes in the US are never prosecuted, and the ratio of committed crimes to prosecuted crimes is at least 10:1.

    Some hoodrats have intimidated their neighborhoods such that the ratio is much greater in their hood.
    , @Chris Mallory

    Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug,
     
    In the rare cases that cops are brought to trial for their many crimes the prosecution seldom tries to convict. Their cases are usually softballs where the prosecution acts more like a defense attorney. The system protects it's own.
  6. @Priss Factor
    Occam's Razor.

    The justice system may be far from ideal, but if the US didn't have the black population, would things be so bad?

    We can blame the system only so much.

    It's like what Robert Weissberg wrote about education. US education may be far from ideal and could do more, but the main problem is there are too many blacks messing things up.

    Proper Leftism focuses our attention on the needs of the people, but dogmatic leftism fixates on the 'poor' as helpless victims of the system that is always wrong.

    But even if the noblest people ran the entire criminal system, the black problem would remain just the same.

    I concur with Priss; today’s policing and Justice are brutal because brute force is the only way to effectively deal with black behavior. Now that blacks are our legal equals, we all get the brutal legal treatment, lest the progressive’s pets complain of racism.

    Eugene “Bull” Connor was right.

  7. This is America, a country totally devoid of justice, a hapless country forced to suffer injustice except for those few cases that heroes such as Bryan Stevenson are able to overturn.

    You take the red pill and boom. This stuff becomes obvious. Take the blue pill and it all becomes invisible. Thank you Dr. Roberts for your tireless efforts to wake people up.

  8. If only we had an actual left to address this issue, instead of a bunch of corporate shills.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "If only we had an actual left to address this issue": be careful what you wish for. British experience is that useful reform often came from Radical Tories rather than the Left.

    Is Trump going to be a Radical Tory? Probably not because they'll just shoot him first. Won't they?
  9. Paul Craig Roberts hit a grand slam home run with this piece.

    As one who has extensive experience with the “justice” system, I can vouch for everything he has written here.

    Now, some judges and attorneys are letting their voices be heard. But they are dim, and the people are indifferent.

  10. @nickels
    If only we had an actual left to address this issue, instead of a bunch of corporate shills.

    “If only we had an actual left to address this issue”: be careful what you wish for. British experience is that useful reform often came from Radical Tories rather than the Left.

    Is Trump going to be a Radical Tory? Probably not because they’ll just shoot him first. Won’t they?

    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    I expect some loony moonbat will try to kill Trump before it's over. The left has gone utterly mad.
  11. @polistra
    PCR is unfair to juries. There are cases where juries succumb to hysteria, but there are a LOT MORE cases where juries understand and defeat an evil persecutor. This is especially true with self-defense. Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug, but juries nearly always overrule the persecutor.

    What unbelievable ignorance! Only 3 out of 100 cases ever reach a jury, and almost always the idiot jurors convict. The stupid fools are patriotic and trust the system.

  12. Now, some judges and attorneys are letting their voices be heard. But they are dim, and the people are indifferent.

    Shockingly indifferent and, to make matters even worse, they have apparently boundless faith in the systems. Most don’t even “get it” when it affects them directly.

    The evil out there is beyond comprehension.

  13. Thank you for addressing this neglected issue. From my blog:

    May 27, 2012 – Three Felonies a Day

    I just finished “Three Felonies a Day”, a good book about our corrupt legal system. It details several recent court cases in our oppressive “justice” system, which this respected criminal defense lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, compares to that of the Soviet Union. The title reflects his observation that federal interpretations of criminal law have become so broad that the average professional (doctor, lawyer, administrator, officer, congressmen) commits three felonies a day.

    If federal authorities want to dispose of someone, they investigate their recent activities and concoct vague charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, false statements, racketeering, mail fraud, or wire fraud. The target is indicted, demeaned by the cooperative corporate press, forced to resign, and usually imprisoned for years after a lengthy kangaroo court. Prosecutors routinely bribe witness through extortion or threats of imprisonment, while the judge pretends all is proper.

    [MORE]

    A recent example is that of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I’m not sure why he was targeted for removal, but on December 8, 2008 he threatened to stop the state’s dealings with Bank of America after it suddenly ended its line-of-credit to a local business, which was forced to shutdown its factory in Chicago and layoff hundreds of workers. He directed all state agencies to stop conducting business with Bank of America to pressure the company to make the loans. John Douglas, a former general counsel for the FDIC and attorney for Bank of America, publicly called Blagojevich “dangerous.”

    The very next day, Governor Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents and charged with corruption. The Justice Department’s 20-count felony complaint alleged that the Governor conspired to “to obtain personal gain … through the corrupt use” of his authority to fill Obama’s vacated Senate seat, claiming that in wiretapped recordings Blagojevich discussed his desire to get something in exchange for an appointment to the seat. The Feds had wiretapped him for months, and all they learned is that he had a foul mouth. Perhaps the “powers that be” directed Blagojevich to appoint someone, and he refused. Then he threatened profits of Bank of America, which like most large American banks is quasi-criminal organization.

    Blogjevich was charged with trying to trade political favors, something all American politicians do on a daily basis. One can review President Obama’s foreign ambassador appointments to learn that most were major donors to his political campaign, yet that is not considered criminal. Congressmen push through “earmarks” to reward specific political backers with federal contracts, but that is not considered corrupt.

    Blagojevich was never charged with taking a bribe, like suitcase of cash. The criminality of the charges were so vague that his first trial resulted in a hung jury, so he was put through the ringer for a second year and finally convicted. The prosecutor’s key witness was his former chief-of-staff who was arrested and threatened with five years in prison for “conspiracy.” He agreed to plead guilty and testify against Blagojevich in return for just a 10-day jail sentence. As in all cases, his plea agreement was contingent on satisfactory testimony that resulted in a conviction of his former boss, an open form of extortion that the judge endorsed.

    Blagojevich is now in federal prison for 14 years, as a non-violent, first-time offender — for what? Trading political favors, something everyone in Congress and the White House does every day? He never even received a favor for filling the senate seat; he was convicted of conspiring to get something in return, which was never specified. One thing is certain, no one in power has threatened a major U.S. bank since Blagojevich was crucified. And who ended up in that Senate seat? CIA agent Mark Kirk.

    • Replies: @utu
    I always wondered what Rod Blagojevich did that they went so hard on him. I did not know of Bank America. I rather suspected it had something to do with the political machine in Chicago and Obama.
  14. Here is another post from my blog (which has links to stories) about rich white guys abused by our kangaroo courts, which should make those concerned about racism feel better. I know it’s long, but very relevant to this important topic since most Americans are unaware of these things due to “fake news” in the USA.

    Jan 8, 2012 – America’s Kangaroo Courts

    Few Americans know that one in five American adults has a criminal record. One in eight American adult males has a felony conviction; it’s one in three for blacks. Think about that the next time you walk through a crowd of people. Anyone with experience in America’s criminal court system knows it’s a sad joke. Anyone who objects is labeled a bleeding heart liberal, who is soft on crime. The only Presidential candidate to object is Ron Paul, which is why our corporate media tells us Paul is crazy. The public gets hints when a friend or family member is arrested, or when a famous American does time for “crime.”

    Actor Wesley Snipes is doing three years in the joint for a misdemeanor conviction of filing false tax returns, prepared by his state certified tax adviser. Barry Bonds’ eight-year multi-million dollar legal battle just ended with a conviction for lying to a grand jury about steroid use. He was lucky to get two years probation after prosecutors demanded 15 months in prison for committing that felony. Two reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury were thrown in jail for a year, as was Bonds’ personal trainer. Few Americans understand that a judge can immediately toss them in jail indefinitely without a trial for “contempt”, even when its a petty case about someone taking a performance enhancing drug to hit a ball better.

    [MORE]

    Billionaire Conrad Black did time for fraud where he heard many stories of judicial outrage. He has the connections to speak out, and received a little attention with articles such as this: Prosecutors Gone Wild. Here is part:

    “The legal profession in the United States is a professional cartel where legislating lawyers and regulators produce thousands of new enforceable laws and regulations every year; judges, prosecutors, and private sector counsel lock arms to ensure that legal invoices, (which total almost 10 per cent of GDP — almost $1.4 trillion annually), are paid as a priority surpassed only by the claims of government.

    Unlimited incidences of what other legally serious countries would consider frivolous or vexatious litigation clog the civil courts, and prosecutors enjoy a stacked evidentiary and procedural deck which gives them a success rate in prosecutions of over 90 per cent. (The corresponding figure in Canada is about 65 per cent, and only about 40 per cent of those receive custodial sentences.)

    The United States has just five per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of its incarcerated people, and 50 per cent of its lawyers.”

    The USA has more people in prison than any other nation on Earth, in total and per capita. This means we have a larger percentage of our population behind bars than all those evil dictatorships around the world. Other modern nations imprison one-tenth of what the USA locks up. I was recently impressed to see footage of a British policeman executing an arrest warrant. He politely knocked on the door, informed the man of fraud charges, and escorted him to his car. No SWAT team and no handcuffs! Our police are rated on the most arrests resulting in convictions, and often bring the press along to publicly humiliate the “suspect.” Prosecutors compete for the most convictions with the longest sentences. Judges are political appointees seeking a reputation as tough on crime.

    The basic prosecutor strategy is to demand a person plead guilty, or face further charges like “obstruction of justice” or “lying to a federal agent.” If that doesn’t work, they threaten to arrest wives or friends under vague “conspiracy” laws, which require citizens to report crimes, lest they be considered part of the conspiracy. They are allowed to bribe witnesses with rewards for testimony, or reduced charges for crimes they have committed. If a troublesome citizen demands a trial, they drag out court proceedings for years until the person is broke and pleads guilty. If he still proclaims innocence, the legal cartel is upset that they must prove guilt, and seek the maximum punishment for every “crime” they can dream up.

    The trial judges are usually tough on crime political hacks, so once a person is arrested he is considered a lying criminal. The judge decides what evidence the defense can present and which witnesses he will allow. Defense lawyers must play along, or the judge will revoke their privilege to represent clients in “his” court system. The defendant is told not take the stand in his own defense because he may later be charged with perjury. The judge instructs the naive jurors what to consider, after having screened out knowledgeable citizens during the jury selection process. If a juror or two refuse to convict, they are often dismissed by the judge and replaced by alternates. Entrapment is no longer a defense. Most FBI terrorism convictions occur when the FBI uses undercover people to convince someone to agree to plan a terror act.

    If the jury fails to convict resulting in a hung jury, the prosecutor starts the whole process over. Some defendants go through several trials before they are convicted. And if found innocent, the prosecutors may bring other charges. Notice that when a “terrorist” is charged with an attack that kills 20 people, he just just charged with killing a few, so that if found innocent, he can be charged again with killing a few more. A common tactic for less serious crimes is to deny bail and keep the defendant in jail for years, until he pleads guilty in exchange for release for timed served.

    Here is a typical case of a citizen with no criminal record accused of a minor non-violent crime, denied bail and kept locked up for 17 months until he pled guilty. Everyone knows he’s guilty because he admitted it, but no one questions why he was not allowed bail or why he wasn’t brought to trial within 90 days. The obvious answer is that prosecutors lacked proof of guilt. The “time served” plea deal is often used when it becomes apparent that someone was wrongly convicted of a serious crime, like the West Memphis Three. Prosecutors and their judge dodge blame for injustice by offering to release the innocent person immediately if they agree to plead guilty to new bogus charges in exchange for time served.

    Recall the highly publicized Florida trial of Casey Anthony last year. She fought to remain free on bail as prosecutors added other petty charges like using a friend’s check to pay for something and lying to a policemen. Her trial was delayed for three years, and when she was found innocent, our television corporate media commentators were outraged, and convinced many Americans that trial by jury was an outdated practice. (Every criminal defense lawyer will tell that you might as well plead guilty than ask for a trial by judge.) The judge sentenced her to three years in prison for lying to a policemen to justify her prior imprisonment, which delayed her release for several more weeks.

    A more interesting court story last year received almost no corporate media attention. Federal judge Jack Kemp was caught in a drug sting buying cocaine for himself and his stripper girlfriend. He admitted having done so several times, and giving his prosty a government issued laptop. Camp and other federal judges usually sentence citizens to at least five years in prison for such behavior, plus several years more if they carried a firearm during their drug deals. Camp was arrested with two loaded handguns. Camp admitted that he frequently snorted cocaine, smoked marijuana, and shot up heroin during his previous four months while presiding over court cases, all of which must be retried, costing the government millions of dollars. There is normally extra prison time added to the sentence of public officials for betraying the public trust.

    How many decades will Judge Camp serve? After expressing disgust with Camp’s crimes, the prosecutor asked for 15 days. The presiding judge doubled that, and sentenced Camp to 30 days in jail. These are same people who routinely sentence young unemployed citizens to years in prison for their first drug offense. And since the presiding judge decided that none of his crimes were felonies, Judge Camp now enjoys a comfortable federal retirement pension, after being protected by what Conrad Black calls the “legal cartel.” There was no public outrage because those in charge of our corporate media chose to ignore this case.

    Our “competitive” corporate media also decided to ignore the case of Las Vegas District Attorney David Schubert, who became famous prosecuting Paris Hilton for cocaine possession. He was arrested last year buying cocaine from a street corner drug dealer while armed with a 9mm pistol, an offense he routinely prosecuted and sent citizens to prison for years. The legal cartel chose to ignore that he admitted doing so for several months, that he was high while at work prosecuting drug users, was armed, and that he bought the drugs. Schubert got just three years probation for possession, and his record will be expunged if he stays out trouble. I’m not bothered by these sentences, but by the hypocrisy of these people who send hundreds of thousands of citizens to years in prison each year for similar “crimes” while our corporate media censors the truth.

    Our corporate media also failed to report that regular citizens no longer have any constructional rights. If the IRS suspects you may have cash stashed overseas, it can now issue a grand jury summons ordering you to turn over all your foreign bank statements. If you refuse, citing a 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, or simply claiming that you have none, a judge can find you in contempt and order you jailed, indefinitely, without trial. And don’t be surprised to encounter federal TSA agents conducting random highway checkpoints with warrantless searches of your car, bags, or groins. As a senior TSA official recently announced: “People generally associate the TSA with airport security…but now we have moved on to other forms of transportation, such as highways, buses and railways.”

    As a final blow, President Obama signed a law on Dec. 31st allowing our military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them without trial indefinitely. Comedian Stephen Colbert explained that is not true, because you will be released once you’ve died. The good news is that we no longer have to worry about losing our freedoms, because we have none left. And we don’t have to worry about trial costs or defense strategy. If charged with a crime, just plead guilty and do your time. I rarely address these issues, lest I be labeled as an anti-government “person of interest” subject to investigation.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    "The United States has just five per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of its incarcerated people, and 50 per cent of its lawyers."

    I asked one correctional officer about it and she told me it is because we have too much freedom in America.
  15. I agree fully with Roberts on this and commend his earlier extensive work exposing this problem. Prosecutors aren’t out for justice but only to win cases. The US police apparatus has long been out of hand, and the system which can “convict a ham sandwich” has long been known for railroading people via plea bargains, corrupt informers and other methods.

  16. The banality of evil. Did the Founding Fathers have any inklings that their project would degenerate into such evil? Was it unavoidable?

  17. Pete Early wrote a book on the McMillan case. I live in the area. McMillan didn’t kill the girl in this case but did kill another girl in an unrelated case. Burned her body and dumped it near Evergreen, AL. So don’t shed too many tears for him.

  18. Roberts needs to stick to economics and politics, things he knows about. This is the typical article of a naive credulous liberal who spoke with crusading defense attorneys. The article cherry picks instances in which defense attorneys claim innocent people were railroaded.

    Roberts naively believed what the defense attorneys told him and obviously did not check out the evid nice with the person was rightfully convicted.

    Liberals have been yapping about plea bargains ever since I can remember. The thing to realize about plea bargains is that the criminal pleads to a lesser charge and gets a lighter sentence than if he or she were convicted of what he or she really did.

    For instance burglary is reduced to criminal trespass. Murder becomes manslaughter. Attempted myrder becomes aggravated assault.

    There is an old French saying; there are 3 sides to every conflict, his, hers, and the truth. Being naive and ignorant about criminals Roberts does not realize that they commit maybe 20 or more crimes for every crime for which they are arrested.

    Then there is the fact that the rules of evidence, protocols procedures are totally to protect the defendants because it is presumed they are innocent and the entire procedure is to protect their rights.

    As far as male prison guards rapibg and harassing women prisoners, that is totally the fault of liberals. We are, I believe the only country in the world that has men guards in women’s prisons and vice versa.
    So naturally the guards molest the women and women guards often prostitue themselves to the prisoners.

    Prison guards are mostly affirmative action dreck. That is why there is so much sex between prisoners and guards. There is probably as many women guards having sex with men prisoners as men guards and women prisoners But that is because both prisoners and guards are the same demographic, brown and black.

    Prisons, like the DMV, post office, court clerks and baliffs, social security administration, probation and parole are almost all nonWhite affirmative action dreck.
    Incidentally, most states have turned away from private prisons. It’s partly because of liability and corruption and partly because prison employment is a major source of affirmative action government jobs.

    This is not objecting reporting. It is just Roberts posting a liberal press release.

    This kind of article is why I believe nothing in the media.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    The thing to realize about plea bargains is that the criminal pleads to a lesser charge and gets a lighter sentence than if he or she were convicted of what he or she really did
     
    The prosecutors and judges would squeal like stuck pigs if we did away with plea bargains. Prosecutors love them because they don't have to actually prove their cases and they get a "win". Defendants are routinely over charged and have family members charged in order to force plea agreements.

    Then there is the fact that the rules of evidence, protocols procedures are totally to protect the defendants because it is presumed they are innocent and the entire procedure is to protect their rights.
     
    As it should be. The state has all the power and money it needs. Citizens need more protection from the state than they do from criminals.
  19. Prosecutors have come to resemble the criminal element they live off. Many are just politicians in waiting using their office to build reputations. Chris Christie comes to mind.

  20. @restless94110
    Paul Craig Roberts hit a grand slam home run with this piece.

    As one who has extensive experience with the "justice" system, I can vouch for everything he has written here.

    Now, some judges and attorneys are letting their voices be heard. But they are dim, and the people are indifferent.

    You must be a criminal. I can always tell.

    • Replies: @art guerrilla
    @ alden
    you must be a human-shaped pile of shit, i can always tell...
    *snort*
  21. Is anyone other than me old enough to remember when liberals jumped on DNA evidence in the belief that it would prove all those Briwn and black thugs innocent of the crimes for which they were “wrongfully convicted?”

    Ha ha ha DNA evidence proved that they were guilty as charged. Now that we have that wonderful DNA data base more and more cold cases are being solved when the perpetrator is arrested for a similar crime 10 years later. DNA evidence also helps the criminals be convicted for not just the one crime for which he or she is arrested, but for the numerous other crimes in which DNA was left all over the victim and the scene of the crime.

    The naive liberal Riberts is also unaware that most departments have been directed to target Whites instead of blacks and Browns to avoid charges of discrimination and BLM destroying the city.

    Jews did many evil things in the 20th century. The worst thing they did in America was to desegregate and destroy the schools and make the criminal justice system so biased against the prosecution in favor of defense.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    "Is anyone other than me old enough to remember when liberals jumped on DNA evidence in the belief that it would prove all those Brown and black thugs innocent of the crimes for which they were 'wrongfully convicted?'"

    I'm old enough, though there were several angles. When DNA was first used, some defense attorneys (Barry Scheck for example) saw it would be irrefutable (if it matched their client) and tried to have it banned. Scheck and Neufeld then started the Innocence Project and did find cases were DNA helped some of the convicted.

    Scheck argued, "If DNA shows a defendant to be not guilty, use it. If DNA shows a defendant to be guilty, it's irrelevant." Defense attorneys still use that gambit, but the tide went over them in the last 20 years.

    DNA evidence has solved innumerable cold cases. For example, the 1975 Marcia Trimble and Sarah Des Prez murders in Nashville, Tennessee. The killer was identified by a DNA hit in 2008.
  22. The purpose of prisons and jails is not to reform the criminals Tge purpose of prisons is to protect the rest of us from the criminals.
    When the state’s passed laws that ended judges being able to let the criminals off with probation or short sentences and substituted standard sentenced, crime droppedWhy? Because the judges could not let them off but were forced by law to send them to prison for a long time.

    Another good law is 3 strikes you’re out and off to prison for the rest of your life.
    When the criminals get out after the first 2 convictions they stop committing crimes because the penalty for another conviction is long, long sentences without possibility of parole.
    I should note that almost all the 3 strikes and taking away judicial discretion sentencing laws were passed by referendums, the voice of the people sick and tired of crime, not by liberal legislators.

    The courts, jails, prisons and parole are the place society puts the blacks and Browns who can’t make it in private sector jobs. Some are the affirmative action guards, court clerks etc. Others are the black and brown criminals
    The Whites are the liberals and Jews who love criminals and want them running amuck and us goyim who just want to be able to take a bus home after dark and not be raped, robbed or killed.

    • Replies: @Of course it was
    I'm with the Draco the lawgiver. When asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones.

    Consider the latest spate of computer crimes, such as ransomware. Someone spent a lot of time thinking about how to steal money from other people by putting them through great anguish. This was not a mistake in judgement, but a deliberate act of cruelty for self gain. Anyone who would do that does not deserve to live among decent people. Send them to the zoo to be used as lion feed. At least some good will come of it.
  23. @anonymous
    Polls typically show that two of the most distrusted categories of people are politicians and lawyers. Judges are a combination of both. They're no Solomons. People become lawyers for pecuniary motives so what sort of moral fiber can one expect from such mercenaries? Power is a corrupting influence for most people and that holds true for those with a badge. Throw in a culture of impunity and mutual backscratching along with a 'no snitching' policy and this is what you get. The whole thing is a business that has all these parasites making a good living from it, just a conveyor belt machine feeding the goods into it. It's not a justice system it's a money machine; anybody who gets sucked into it is sure to lose.

    The article was the best I have read by PCR but your comment is empty and silly. True many lawyers are neither competent or honest and the idea of judges and prosecutors being elected appals me but your characterisation of people’s motives for becoming lawyers is crude and ignorant. Many aspire to ensure society enjoys the rule of law in its traditional sense.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    the idea of judges and prosecutors being elected appals
     
    Judge selection isn't effected by some kind of deus ex machina. They are chosen by elected pols. Why entrust the decision to an elected pol? Vote for them directly. Most local prosecutors stateside are elected, including the Manhattan District Attorney. I'd like to see 10 year terms for judges with no term limits. The reason judges should be elected is simple - in the US, they get the final word. You might say they rule by decree. It is important for voters to have a direct say in the selection of anyone who gets to issue, in essence, royal decrees.
  24. I have been trying to persuade Australian politicians that extraditing one’s own citizens (instead of holding a trial in their home country) is almost always wrong. Unfortunately the US has been at the forefront of my case. Sadly you support that case convincingly. However, I am surprised that you didn’t tackle the problems inherent in judges and prosecutors being elected.

  25. PCR, thanks. How can one tell one’s living in, say, Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR, or Mao’s China? I mean by that the states and governments that historians and legal scholars will in the future excoriate for their patent misdeeds and rottenness. Are there signposts warning: “Hey, Horst, here’s where the Jews get it in the kisser”, or “Ivan, this is where Comrade Stalin takes care of those uppity shopkeepers”?

    Do you fight, flee, collaborate, or surrender? Surely every rotten law and policy put up by the Nazis, the Bolsheviks, and our governing elites here in the United States has a smiley-face sticker on it, a mess of arguments and propaganda and justifications that make dissent for ordinary Joes who sense something deeply wrong nearly impossible.

  26. @polistra
    PCR is unfair to juries. There are cases where juries succumb to hysteria, but there are a LOT MORE cases where juries understand and defeat an evil persecutor. This is especially true with self-defense. Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug, but juries nearly always overrule the persecutor.

    PCR is unfair to juries. There are cases where juries succumb to hysteria, but there are a LOT MORE cases where juries understand and defeat an evil persecutor. This is especially true with self-defense. Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug, but juries nearly always overrule the persecutor.

    Conversely, just one SJW activist on a jury can get a case thrown out because the SJW juror refuses to convict another SJW activist defendant no matter the evidence is to convict.

    Afro-black jurors have done such ignoble things for Afro criminal defendants so many times, that they now have a label for it: Bronx Jury.

    Most crimes in the US are never prosecuted, and the ratio of committed crimes to prosecuted crimes is at least 10:1.

    Some hoodrats have intimidated their neighborhoods such that the ratio is much greater in their hood.

  27. I stood in front of a judge time after time, all for one case. Not one time was I given an opportunity to state my case. The entire time was spent attempting to fight against the ridiculous plea “bargain” that Roberts talks about, designed to imprison me for SOMETHING. The judge threatened me with 36 years in prison. The prosecutor demanded at least one year. On my final appearance, the prosecutor stated his case against me. The judge looked at him and said, “I don’t believe you. The documentation that I have in front of me says that isn’t true.” The prosecutor was just making sh!t up and the judge had proof. If that was you or me lying like that, we’d be in jail for perjury. Instead, the prosecutor gets a paycheck and moves on to his next case to lie about.

    I received no prison time and it cost me much of my life savings just to keep my freedom. And it pisses me off to no end to see people saying things like, “The justice system may be far from ideal . . .”, no matter what inane nonsense they follow it with.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The prosecutor wasn't guilty of perjury since he wasn't giving evidence on oath but if the case was as blatant as you say it seems surprising that he wasn't at least reported to the ethics committee of the Bar association or some such potentially disciplining body.
    , @Avery
    What were you originally (falsely?) accused of?
    Were you representing yourself?
  28. @dearieme
    "If only we had an actual left to address this issue": be careful what you wish for. British experience is that useful reform often came from Radical Tories rather than the Left.

    Is Trump going to be a Radical Tory? Probably not because they'll just shoot him first. Won't they?

    I expect some loony moonbat will try to kill Trump before it’s over. The left has gone utterly mad.

  29. Oct 9, 2016 The New Slave Revolt

    A nationwide prison work stoppage and hunger strike, begun on Sept. 9, the 45th anniversary of the Attica uprising, have seen over 20,000 prisoners in about 30 prisons do what we on the outside should do—refuse to cooperate. “We will not only demand the end to prison slavery, we will end it ourselves by ceasing to be slaves,” prisoners of the Free Alabama Movement, the Free Ohio Movement and the IWW Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee wrote in a communique.

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_new_slave_revolt_20161009

  30. Jan 14, 2016 The Big Money Fighting Legal Pot – Follow the Money #7

    Some special interests are spending big money to try and shut down the growing marijuana legalization movement — but who are they?

  31. @Cletus Rothschild
    I stood in front of a judge time after time, all for one case. Not one time was I given an opportunity to state my case. The entire time was spent attempting to fight against the ridiculous plea "bargain" that Roberts talks about, designed to imprison me for SOMETHING. The judge threatened me with 36 years in prison. The prosecutor demanded at least one year. On my final appearance, the prosecutor stated his case against me. The judge looked at him and said, "I don't believe you. The documentation that I have in front of me says that isn't true." The prosecutor was just making sh!t up and the judge had proof. If that was you or me lying like that, we'd be in jail for perjury. Instead, the prosecutor gets a paycheck and moves on to his next case to lie about.

    I received no prison time and it cost me much of my life savings just to keep my freedom. And it pisses me off to no end to see people saying things like, "The justice system may be far from ideal . . .", no matter what inane nonsense they follow it with.

    The prosecutor wasn’t guilty of perjury since he wasn’t giving evidence on oath but if the case was as blatant as you say it seems surprising that he wasn’t at least reported to the ethics committee of the Bar association or some such potentially disciplining body.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    The prosecutor wasn’t guilty of perjury since he wasn’t giving evidence on oath
     
    Then we need to start requiring all court officials be considered as "under oath" any time they speak in a courtroom.

    it seems surprising that he wasn’t at least reported to the ethics committee of the Bar association
     
    So he can get a slap on the wrist, given in confidence with no input from the public.
  32. @Wizard of Oz
    The article was the best I have read by PCR but your comment is empty and silly. True many lawyers are neither competent or honest and the idea of judges and prosecutors being elected appals me but your characterisation of people's motives for becoming lawyers is crude and ignorant. Many aspire to ensure society enjoys the rule of law in its traditional sense.

    the idea of judges and prosecutors being elected appals

    Judge selection isn’t effected by some kind of deus ex machina. They are chosen by elected pols. Why entrust the decision to an elected pol? Vote for them directly. Most local prosecutors stateside are elected, including the Manhattan District Attorney. I’d like to see 10 year terms for judges with no term limits. The reason judges should be elected is simple – in the US, they get the final word. You might say they rule by decree. It is important for voters to have a direct say in the selection of anyone who gets to issue, in essence, royal decrees.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think I understand your argument but it doesn't work. Because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the US constitution there is a lot of scope for quasi political activity by the judiciary and for the legislature to be overruled or the executive curbed. But in the end it is the unelected judges of SCOTUS and sometimes unelected Circuit Court of Appeal judges who have the last word on that. The problems lie with prosecutors and trial judges who want to be seen as tough on crime for electoral gain.
  33. @Alden
    Roberts needs to stick to economics and politics, things he knows about. This is the typical article of a naive credulous liberal who spoke with crusading defense attorneys. The article cherry picks instances in which defense attorneys claim innocent people were railroaded.

    Roberts naively believed what the defense attorneys told him and obviously did not check out the evid nice with the person was rightfully convicted.

    Liberals have been yapping about plea bargains ever since I can remember. The thing to realize about plea bargains is that the criminal pleads to a lesser charge and gets a lighter sentence than if he or she were convicted of what he or she really did.

    For instance burglary is reduced to criminal trespass. Murder becomes manslaughter. Attempted myrder becomes aggravated assault.

    There is an old French saying; there are 3 sides to every conflict, his, hers, and the truth. Being naive and ignorant about criminals Roberts does not realize that they commit maybe 20 or more crimes for every crime for which they are arrested.

    Then there is the fact that the rules of evidence, protocols procedures are totally to protect the defendants because it is presumed they are innocent and the entire procedure is to protect their rights.

    As far as male prison guards rapibg and harassing women prisoners, that is totally the fault of liberals. We are, I believe the only country in the world that has men guards in women's prisons and vice versa.
    So naturally the guards molest the women and women guards often prostitue themselves to the prisoners.

    Prison guards are mostly affirmative action dreck. That is why there is so much sex between prisoners and guards. There is probably as many women guards having sex with men prisoners as men guards and women prisoners But that is because both prisoners and guards are the same demographic, brown and black.

    Prisons, like the DMV, post office, court clerks and baliffs, social security administration, probation and parole are almost all nonWhite affirmative action dreck.
    Incidentally, most states have turned away from private prisons. It's partly because of liability and corruption and partly because prison employment is a major source of affirmative action government jobs.

    This is not objecting reporting. It is just Roberts posting a liberal press release.

    This kind of article is why I believe nothing in the media.

    The thing to realize about plea bargains is that the criminal pleads to a lesser charge and gets a lighter sentence than if he or she were convicted of what he or she really did

    The prosecutors and judges would squeal like stuck pigs if we did away with plea bargains. Prosecutors love them because they don’t have to actually prove their cases and they get a “win”. Defendants are routinely over charged and have family members charged in order to force plea agreements.

    Then there is the fact that the rules of evidence, protocols procedures are totally to protect the defendants because it is presumed they are innocent and the entire procedure is to protect their rights.

    As it should be. The state has all the power and money it needs. Citizens need more protection from the state than they do from criminals.

  34. @polistra
    PCR is unfair to juries. There are cases where juries succumb to hysteria, but there are a LOT MORE cases where juries understand and defeat an evil persecutor. This is especially true with self-defense. Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug, but juries nearly always overrule the persecutor.

    Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug,

    In the rare cases that cops are brought to trial for their many crimes the prosecution seldom tries to convict. Their cases are usually softballs where the prosecution acts more like a defense attorney. The system protects it’s own.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    The system protects it’s own.
     
    That, in fact is why systems are instituted and grow, despite the flowery rhetoric to the contrary.

    Too many people have faith in those systems.

    Where do they get their faith?
  35. @Wizard of Oz
    The prosecutor wasn't guilty of perjury since he wasn't giving evidence on oath but if the case was as blatant as you say it seems surprising that he wasn't at least reported to the ethics committee of the Bar association or some such potentially disciplining body.

    The prosecutor wasn’t guilty of perjury since he wasn’t giving evidence on oath

    Then we need to start requiring all court officials be considered as “under oath” any time they speak in a courtroom.

    it seems surprising that he wasn’t at least reported to the ethics committee of the Bar association

    So he can get a slap on the wrist, given in confidence with no input from the public.

  36. @Carlton Meyer
    Here is another post from my blog (which has links to stories) about rich white guys abused by our kangaroo courts, which should make those concerned about racism feel better. I know it's long, but very relevant to this important topic since most Americans are unaware of these things due to "fake news" in the USA.

    Jan 8, 2012 - America's Kangaroo Courts

    Few Americans know that one in five American adults has a criminal record. One in eight American adult males has a felony conviction; it's one in three for blacks. Think about that the next time you walk through a crowd of people. Anyone with experience in America's criminal court system knows it's a sad joke. Anyone who objects is labeled a bleeding heart liberal, who is soft on crime. The only Presidential candidate to object is Ron Paul, which is why our corporate media tells us Paul is crazy. The public gets hints when a friend or family member is arrested, or when a famous American does time for "crime."

    Actor Wesley Snipes is doing three years in the joint for a misdemeanor conviction of filing false tax returns, prepared by his state certified tax adviser. Barry Bonds' eight-year multi-million dollar legal battle just ended with a conviction for lying to a grand jury about steroid use. He was lucky to get two years probation after prosecutors demanded 15 months in prison for committing that felony. Two reporters who refused to testify before the grand jury were thrown in jail for a year, as was Bonds' personal trainer. Few Americans understand that a judge can immediately toss them in jail indefinitely without a trial for "contempt", even when its a petty case about someone taking a performance enhancing drug to hit a ball better.

    Billionaire Conrad Black did time for fraud where he heard many stories of judicial outrage. He has the connections to speak out, and received a little attention with articles such as this: Prosecutors Gone Wild. Here is part:

    "The legal profession in the United States is a professional cartel where legislating lawyers and regulators produce thousands of new enforceable laws and regulations every year; judges, prosecutors, and private sector counsel lock arms to ensure that legal invoices, (which total almost 10 per cent of GDP -- almost $1.4 trillion annually), are paid as a priority surpassed only by the claims of government.

    Unlimited incidences of what other legally serious countries would consider frivolous or vexatious litigation clog the civil courts, and prosecutors enjoy a stacked evidentiary and procedural deck which gives them a success rate in prosecutions of over 90 per cent. (The corresponding figure in Canada is about 65 per cent, and only about 40 per cent of those receive custodial sentences.)

    The United States has just five per cent of the world's population, 25 per cent of its incarcerated people, and 50 per cent of its lawyers."

    The USA has more people in prison than any other nation on Earth, in total and per capita. This means we have a larger percentage of our population behind bars than all those evil dictatorships around the world. Other modern nations imprison one-tenth of what the USA locks up. I was recently impressed to see footage of a British policeman executing an arrest warrant. He politely knocked on the door, informed the man of fraud charges, and escorted him to his car. No SWAT team and no handcuffs! Our police are rated on the most arrests resulting in convictions, and often bring the press along to publicly humiliate the "suspect." Prosecutors compete for the most convictions with the longest sentences. Judges are political appointees seeking a reputation as tough on crime.

    The basic prosecutor strategy is to demand a person plead guilty, or face further charges like "obstruction of justice" or "lying to a federal agent." If that doesn't work, they threaten to arrest wives or friends under vague "conspiracy" laws, which require citizens to report crimes, lest they be considered part of the conspiracy. They are allowed to bribe witnesses with rewards for testimony, or reduced charges for crimes they have committed. If a troublesome citizen demands a trial, they drag out court proceedings for years until the person is broke and pleads guilty. If he still proclaims innocence, the legal cartel is upset that they must prove guilt, and seek the maximum punishment for every "crime" they can dream up.

    The trial judges are usually tough on crime political hacks, so once a person is arrested he is considered a lying criminal. The judge decides what evidence the defense can present and which witnesses he will allow. Defense lawyers must play along, or the judge will revoke their privilege to represent clients in "his" court system. The defendant is told not take the stand in his own defense because he may later be charged with perjury. The judge instructs the naive jurors what to consider, after having screened out knowledgeable citizens during the jury selection process. If a juror or two refuse to convict, they are often dismissed by the judge and replaced by alternates. Entrapment is no longer a defense. Most FBI terrorism convictions occur when the FBI uses undercover people to convince someone to agree to plan a terror act.

    If the jury fails to convict resulting in a hung jury, the prosecutor starts the whole process over. Some defendants go through several trials before they are convicted. And if found innocent, the prosecutors may bring other charges. Notice that when a "terrorist" is charged with an attack that kills 20 people, he just just charged with killing a few, so that if found innocent, he can be charged again with killing a few more. A common tactic for less serious crimes is to deny bail and keep the defendant in jail for years, until he pleads guilty in exchange for release for timed served.

    Here is a typical case of a citizen with no criminal record accused of a minor non-violent crime, denied bail and kept locked up for 17 months until he pled guilty. Everyone knows he's guilty because he admitted it, but no one questions why he was not allowed bail or why he wasn't brought to trial within 90 days. The obvious answer is that prosecutors lacked proof of guilt. The "time served" plea deal is often used when it becomes apparent that someone was wrongly convicted of a serious crime, like the West Memphis Three. Prosecutors and their judge dodge blame for injustice by offering to release the innocent person immediately if they agree to plead guilty to new bogus charges in exchange for time served.

    Recall the highly publicized Florida trial of Casey Anthony last year. She fought to remain free on bail as prosecutors added other petty charges like using a friend's check to pay for something and lying to a policemen. Her trial was delayed for three years, and when she was found innocent, our television corporate media commentators were outraged, and convinced many Americans that trial by jury was an outdated practice. (Every criminal defense lawyer will tell that you might as well plead guilty than ask for a trial by judge.) The judge sentenced her to three years in prison for lying to a policemen to justify her prior imprisonment, which delayed her release for several more weeks.

    A more interesting court story last year received almost no corporate media attention. Federal judge Jack Kemp was caught in a drug sting buying cocaine for himself and his stripper girlfriend. He admitted having done so several times, and giving his prosty a government issued laptop. Camp and other federal judges usually sentence citizens to at least five years in prison for such behavior, plus several years more if they carried a firearm during their drug deals. Camp was arrested with two loaded handguns. Camp admitted that he frequently snorted cocaine, smoked marijuana, and shot up heroin during his previous four months while presiding over court cases, all of which must be retried, costing the government millions of dollars. There is normally extra prison time added to the sentence of public officials for betraying the public trust.

    How many decades will Judge Camp serve? After expressing disgust with Camp's crimes, the prosecutor asked for 15 days. The presiding judge doubled that, and sentenced Camp to 30 days in jail. These are same people who routinely sentence young unemployed citizens to years in prison for their first drug offense. And since the presiding judge decided that none of his crimes were felonies, Judge Camp now enjoys a comfortable federal retirement pension, after being protected by what Conrad Black calls the "legal cartel." There was no public outrage because those in charge of our corporate media chose to ignore this case.

    Our "competitive" corporate media also decided to ignore the case of Las Vegas District Attorney David Schubert, who became famous prosecuting Paris Hilton for cocaine possession. He was arrested last year buying cocaine from a street corner drug dealer while armed with a 9mm pistol, an offense he routinely prosecuted and sent citizens to prison for years. The legal cartel chose to ignore that he admitted doing so for several months, that he was high while at work prosecuting drug users, was armed, and that he bought the drugs. Schubert got just three years probation for possession, and his record will be expunged if he stays out trouble. I'm not bothered by these sentences, but by the hypocrisy of these people who send hundreds of thousands of citizens to years in prison each year for similar "crimes" while our corporate media censors the truth.

    Our corporate media also failed to report that regular citizens no longer have any constructional rights. If the IRS suspects you may have cash stashed overseas, it can now issue a grand jury summons ordering you to turn over all your foreign bank statements. If you refuse, citing a 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, or simply claiming that you have none, a judge can find you in contempt and order you jailed, indefinitely, without trial. And don't be surprised to encounter federal TSA agents conducting random highway checkpoints with warrantless searches of your car, bags, or groins. As a senior TSA official recently announced: “People generally associate the TSA with airport security…but now we have moved on to other forms of transportation, such as highways, buses and railways.”

    As a final blow, President Obama signed a law on Dec. 31st allowing our military to arrest U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them without trial indefinitely. Comedian Stephen Colbert explained that is not true, because you will be released once you've died. The good news is that we no longer have to worry about losing our freedoms, because we have none left. And we don't have to worry about trial costs or defense strategy. If charged with a crime, just plead guilty and do your time. I rarely address these issues, lest I be labeled as an anti-government "person of interest" subject to investigation.

    “The United States has just five per cent of the world’s population, 25 per cent of its incarcerated people, and 50 per cent of its lawyers.”

    I asked one correctional officer about it and she told me it is because we have too much freedom in America.

  37. @Carlton Meyer
    Thank you for addressing this neglected issue. From my blog:

    May 27, 2012 - Three Felonies a Day

    I just finished "Three Felonies a Day", a good book about our corrupt legal system. It details several recent court cases in our oppressive "justice" system, which this respected criminal defense lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, compares to that of the Soviet Union. The title reflects his observation that federal interpretations of criminal law have become so broad that the average professional (doctor, lawyer, administrator, officer, congressmen) commits three felonies a day.

    If federal authorities want to dispose of someone, they investigate their recent activities and concoct vague charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, false statements, racketeering, mail fraud, or wire fraud. The target is indicted, demeaned by the cooperative corporate press, forced to resign, and usually imprisoned for years after a lengthy kangaroo court. Prosecutors routinely bribe witness through extortion or threats of imprisonment, while the judge pretends all is proper.

    A recent example is that of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I'm not sure why he was targeted for removal, but on December 8, 2008 he threatened to stop the state’s dealings with Bank of America after it suddenly ended its line-of-credit to a local business, which was forced to shutdown its factory in Chicago and layoff hundreds of workers. He directed all state agencies to stop conducting business with Bank of America to pressure the company to make the loans. John Douglas, a former general counsel for the FDIC and attorney for Bank of America, publicly called Blagojevich "dangerous."

    The very next day, Governor Blagojevich was arrested at his home by federal agents and charged with corruption. The Justice Department's 20-count felony complaint alleged that the Governor conspired to "to obtain personal gain ... through the corrupt use" of his authority to fill Obama's vacated Senate seat, claiming that in wiretapped recordings Blagojevich discussed his desire to get something in exchange for an appointment to the seat. The Feds had wiretapped him for months, and all they learned is that he had a foul mouth. Perhaps the "powers that be" directed Blagojevich to appoint someone, and he refused. Then he threatened profits of Bank of America, which like most large American banks is quasi-criminal organization.

    Blogjevich was charged with trying to trade political favors, something all American politicians do on a daily basis. One can review President Obama's foreign ambassador appointments to learn that most were major donors to his political campaign, yet that is not considered criminal. Congressmen push through "earmarks" to reward specific political backers with federal contracts, but that is not considered corrupt.

    Blagojevich was never charged with taking a bribe, like suitcase of cash. The criminality of the charges were so vague that his first trial resulted in a hung jury, so he was put through the ringer for a second year and finally convicted. The prosecutor's key witness was his former chief-of-staff who was arrested and threatened with five years in prison for "conspiracy." He agreed to plead guilty and testify against Blagojevich in return for just a 10-day jail sentence. As in all cases, his plea agreement was contingent on satisfactory testimony that resulted in a conviction of his former boss, an open form of extortion that the judge endorsed.

    Blagojevich is now in federal prison for 14 years, as a non-violent, first-time offender -- for what? Trading political favors, something everyone in Congress and the White House does every day? He never even received a favor for filling the senate seat; he was convicted of conspiring to get something in return, which was never specified. One thing is certain, no one in power has threatened a major U.S. bank since Blagojevich was crucified. And who ended up in that Senate seat? CIA agent Mark Kirk.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRaf-XfoD8

    I always wondered what Rod Blagojevich did that they went so hard on him. I did not know of Bank America. I rather suspected it had something to do with the political machine in Chicago and Obama.

  38. @Chris Mallory

    Persecutors always try to convict a citizen or a cop who defends himself against a thug,
     
    In the rare cases that cops are brought to trial for their many crimes the prosecution seldom tries to convict. Their cases are usually softballs where the prosecution acts more like a defense attorney. The system protects it's own.

    The system protects it’s own.

    That, in fact is why systems are instituted and grow, despite the flowery rhetoric to the contrary.

    Too many people have faith in those systems.

    Where do they get their faith?

  39. June 16, 2016 Supreme Court Ruling: Police Have No Duty to Protect the General Public

    However, did you know that the government, and specifically law enforcement, does not have any duty to protect the general public? Based on the headline and this information, you might assume this is a new, landmark decision. However, it has long been the court’s stance that, essentially, the American people are responsible for taking case of their own personal safety.

    http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/

    Aug 21, 2016 Just Say No: Don’t Federalize Local Police!

    Some people want you to think that the solution to problems with police is to get the federal government more involved. But they’ve got things completely backwards.

  40. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @NoseytheDuke
    So many "tough" investigators and jurists glommed on to the public teat yet none with cojones enough to take on Pizzagate which has managed to slip under the wire without a thorough investigation ever taking place. O America, I weep for thee.

    You’re going to be weeping for a long time, indeed.

  41. the PCR is out on a tear again. First, no stats on race and crime. Second, no stats on comparative rates of imprisonment, racially, with other countries. Whites commit no more crime here than in Europe.

    So we got the liberal anti-racist crusader here too. gawd.

    What country , stats again, will give you a more fair shake in the courtroom, etc.? Ask yourself what country you would rather do jail time in, assuming that race is factored in…that is, being with Whites as opposed to darkies while in the slammer.

    Bender, going ’round the bend as usual.

    Then there are the familiar crowd of professional Anti types here on this list. Remains me of the Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn novels wherein the father of Huck rambles on about “The Govment.”

    The Left and the Right both have their goofs, although there are far more on the Left.

    JW

    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
    "The Left and the Right both have their goofs, although there are far more on the Left."

    Joe Webb,

    The trueactivist.com (linked below) adds documented evidence to to your finding.

    http://www.trueactivist.com/see-the-names-of-the-senators-who-voted-against-the-audit-of-the-federal-reserve/

    Remember how the Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Manes addressed a concert and declared that she's "ashamed to be from Texas" because of her anger with President G.W. Bush's immoral and unnecessary wars?

    As a life-long Pennsylvania resident, now I can say that I am ashamed of Senator Robert Casey (Pa/D) for his voting "nay" on Rand Paul's vital bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

    It's 5:17 pm (EST), Joe Webb, and do you know where your US Senator is?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    The US certainly has a bigger ethnic crime problem than most countries it might be conpared with but your faith based stats and fact free patriotism overlooks significant facts and conditions. One is its gun laws and number of guns which, unsurprisingly correlate with homicides and other gun deaths. Another is minimum sentences and three strikes and your out laws which have hardly infected other First World countries. Although police and prosecutors everywhere may succumb to pressure or other motive to gain convictions the distorting effect of having popular elections for prosecutors and judges who deal with criminal cases should be obvious. Nor do other countries have a free speech rule which is interpreted to allow defendants to be publicly slandered before trial by prosecution and media lynch mobs. Also, the antiquated grand jury system which has been replaced elsewhere is notorious for what ot allows prosecutors to get away with though one occasionally reads of grand juries failing to behave like lapdogs - maybe where race based PC is being resisted.
  42. @Johann Ricke

    the idea of judges and prosecutors being elected appals
     
    Judge selection isn't effected by some kind of deus ex machina. They are chosen by elected pols. Why entrust the decision to an elected pol? Vote for them directly. Most local prosecutors stateside are elected, including the Manhattan District Attorney. I'd like to see 10 year terms for judges with no term limits. The reason judges should be elected is simple - in the US, they get the final word. You might say they rule by decree. It is important for voters to have a direct say in the selection of anyone who gets to issue, in essence, royal decrees.

    I think I understand your argument but it doesn’t work. Because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the US constitution there is a lot of scope for quasi political activity by the judiciary and for the legislature to be overruled or the executive curbed. But in the end it is the unelected judges of SCOTUS and sometimes unelected Circuit Court of Appeal judges who have the last word on that. The problems lie with prosecutors and trial judges who want to be seen as tough on crime for electoral gain.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The problems lie with prosecutors and trial judges who want to be seen as tough on crime for electoral gain.
     
    The popular will is the problem?
  43. @Alden
    You must be a criminal. I can always tell.

    @ alden
    you must be a human-shaped pile of shit, i can always tell…
    *snort*

    • Replies: @Alden
    You must be a black criminal with a long long felony record.
  44. Well I would generally agree with OCR on the corruption and laziness in the justice system but like a lot of his stuff he gets cause and effect wrong. For instance:

    One is the privatization of prisons, which has turned them into profit-making enterprises ever needful of more labor to exploit, which adds to the pressure for convictions

    Totally wrong. Private prisons came about because the state agencies charged with building new prisons couldn’t build them fast enough to keep up with our burgeoning immigrant communities.

    The reason why there are more convictions is because there are ever more laws. In the past if you punched your neighbor in the face or told him you were going to “kick his ass” the cops would come by and try to calm you down and get everybody to shake hands. Now they try to pin a felony conviction on somebody for “making terrorists threats”. Some of this came about because in our present drug addled world those threats became real and people got hurt.

    The lady who cuts my hair got into a verbal cat-fight with his ex-wife over some old coot. Common sense would say that neither of them posed any real threat to anybody. The end result was that both of them had to plead guilty to a felony. By the time they paid the fines and went to the anger management classes it cost each of them close to 10 grand.

    Want a retraining order on somebody. It seems the asking party merely has to show up to get one – no proof needed. The object of the order has to convince the judge – not the other way around.

    However, in many areas it seems like the government wants everybody to be a paper felon. Copy a CD and you are subject to 5 years in prison. Don’t worry they will let you off with 3 months probation and a low level felony. How convenient for the government if everybody is a felon.

    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    Mr. Roberts assumed readers of this site were educated and aware of America's massive incarceration rate, so provided no links to data. Others think that entertainment TV shows provide information on plea bargaining. In its current form, the "deal" is that if you plead guilty or the government will pile on numerous other vague charges that could put you in prison five times longer. For example, money laundering has become spending money from a crime. Denying a charge has become perjury. Not helping the prosecutor collect evidence has become obstruction of justice. Not snitching on friends and relatives has become conspiracy.

    The stories are endless. California's state prison union is the biggest campaign donor in the state, and lobbies for increased penalties, and higher pay, which doubled over the past two decades. A great example was in the national news just 12 days ago. A guy installed a device to cover his license plate while going thru a toll booth. He was caught by a highway patrolmen, arrested on a FELONY charge for evading the $1.50 toll and tossed in jail.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UTmqGcuICM

    One of the greatest abuses is the uses of snitches, which PBS documented back in 1999.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKNOb0m1mo8
  45. @The Alarmist
    That famous statue of lady Justice depicts her as blindfolded ... we were always taught that that is because justice is "blind," which was meant to mean imprtial. What is described here can only be one of two things: Justice has blinded itself to what it is passing judgment on, or Justice is blindfolded because it is now held hostage to the base morals of mere mortals who would be gods.

    In my snarky moments I say something like: It’s a good thing Lady Justice is blindfolded. Otherwise she would weep at the things that happen daily in her name.

    Then there is the “Criminal Injustice System”…

    P.S. Sorry for the low SNR, but this topic gets me cranky. The big problem is I think Churchill’s “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” is all too applicable as an analogy to our legal system.

  46. Re: article title; “The Justice System is Criminal.”

    Agreed… “A fish rots from the head.”

    1.) Invalid criminal investigation of JFK, RFK, MLK, and the crew of USS Liberty murders.

    2.) Invalid criminal investigation into the shooting down of TWA Flight 800.

    3.) Criminal investigation into the criminal 9-11 attacks and the US/Zionist rogue state’s
    starting their War of Terror including the Camp X-ray imprisonment of the dead
    mastermind, K.S.M.

    When a government evolves into a composite unconvicted felon, it’s natural for each citizen to become (at minimum) a suspected felon.

    When a president pardon felons like Jason Pollard & Marc Rich and continues to imprison ones like Leonard Peltier, prisoners “on-the-inside” become wary of life “on-the-outside” and contemplate why the former criminals don’t have to wear ankle bracelets.

    Hell-on-Earth is when international high level criminals have the best of everything and could unaccountably screw any nation.

    “A fish rots from the head,” and only the little ones go inside a Corporate fisherman’s metal 5-gallon pail and get fried.

  47. @Cletus Rothschild
    I stood in front of a judge time after time, all for one case. Not one time was I given an opportunity to state my case. The entire time was spent attempting to fight against the ridiculous plea "bargain" that Roberts talks about, designed to imprison me for SOMETHING. The judge threatened me with 36 years in prison. The prosecutor demanded at least one year. On my final appearance, the prosecutor stated his case against me. The judge looked at him and said, "I don't believe you. The documentation that I have in front of me says that isn't true." The prosecutor was just making sh!t up and the judge had proof. If that was you or me lying like that, we'd be in jail for perjury. Instead, the prosecutor gets a paycheck and moves on to his next case to lie about.

    I received no prison time and it cost me much of my life savings just to keep my freedom. And it pisses me off to no end to see people saying things like, "The justice system may be far from ideal . . .", no matter what inane nonsense they follow it with.

    What were you originally (falsely?) accused of?
    Were you representing yourself?

  48. Just why is the legal system so abberated and bizarre ? Two basic reasons :

    1 : Ninty percent of all judges, states barristers and lawyers are Democrats : Indicating that there are legions of nut-cases running the pandemoneous legal system, and the results are obvious.

    2 : Shrinks, all democrats, being evolved in the system and verdicts, making it crazy beyond repair.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” mensa since 1973, and pro jazz artist.

  49. In my humble opinion the justice system is FUBAR because the emphasis is on rehabilitation when it should be on restitution.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Excuse my amazement at the two ideas you have exposed. 1. The US [criminal] justice system emphasises rehabilitation???!!! If one had to choose one word I would have thought "retrubution" would be closer. 2. Restitution is possible - from whom? - from what source? Short of handing over criminals to victims as their suitably shackled slaves how?
    , @utu
    "the emphasis is on rehabilitation" - not in the US. Actually rehabilitation is a dirty word.
  50. @Alden
    Is anyone other than me old enough to remember when liberals jumped on DNA evidence in the belief that it would prove all those Briwn and black thugs innocent of the crimes for which they were "wrongfully convicted?"

    Ha ha ha DNA evidence proved that they were guilty as charged. Now that we have that wonderful DNA data base more and more cold cases are being solved when the perpetrator is arrested for a similar crime 10 years later. DNA evidence also helps the criminals be convicted for not just the one crime for which he or she is arrested, but for the numerous other crimes in which DNA was left all over the victim and the scene of the crime.

    The naive liberal Riberts is also unaware that most departments have been directed to target Whites instead of blacks and Browns to avoid charges of discrimination and BLM destroying the city.

    Jews did many evil things in the 20th century. The worst thing they did in America was to desegregate and destroy the schools and make the criminal justice system so biased against the prosecution in favor of defense.

    “Is anyone other than me old enough to remember when liberals jumped on DNA evidence in the belief that it would prove all those Brown and black thugs innocent of the crimes for which they were ‘wrongfully convicted?’”

    I’m old enough, though there were several angles. When DNA was first used, some defense attorneys (Barry Scheck for example) saw it would be irrefutable (if it matched their client) and tried to have it banned. Scheck and Neufeld then started the Innocence Project and did find cases were DNA helped some of the convicted.

    Scheck argued, “If DNA shows a defendant to be not guilty, use it. If DNA shows a defendant to be guilty, it’s irrelevant.” Defense attorneys still use that gambit, but the tide went over them in the last 20 years.

    DNA evidence has solved innumerable cold cases. For example, the 1975 Marcia Trimble and Sarah Des Prez murders in Nashville, Tennessee. The killer was identified by a DNA hit in 2008.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    The funny thing is immigrant, Boom Boom Girl Michelle Malkin is trying to discredit DNA because it has been used to put criminal cops in prison.
  51. @David In TN
    "Is anyone other than me old enough to remember when liberals jumped on DNA evidence in the belief that it would prove all those Brown and black thugs innocent of the crimes for which they were 'wrongfully convicted?'"

    I'm old enough, though there were several angles. When DNA was first used, some defense attorneys (Barry Scheck for example) saw it would be irrefutable (if it matched their client) and tried to have it banned. Scheck and Neufeld then started the Innocence Project and did find cases were DNA helped some of the convicted.

    Scheck argued, "If DNA shows a defendant to be not guilty, use it. If DNA shows a defendant to be guilty, it's irrelevant." Defense attorneys still use that gambit, but the tide went over them in the last 20 years.

    DNA evidence has solved innumerable cold cases. For example, the 1975 Marcia Trimble and Sarah Des Prez murders in Nashville, Tennessee. The killer was identified by a DNA hit in 2008.

    The funny thing is immigrant, Boom Boom Girl Michelle Malkin is trying to discredit DNA because it has been used to put criminal cops in prison.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    Do you think it was funny for the killer of Marcia Trimble and Sarah Des Prez to escape justice for 35 years?

    I believe criminal cops should be in prison if DNA proves their guilt.
  52. @Wizard of Oz
    I think I understand your argument but it doesn't work. Because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the US constitution there is a lot of scope for quasi political activity by the judiciary and for the legislature to be overruled or the executive curbed. But in the end it is the unelected judges of SCOTUS and sometimes unelected Circuit Court of Appeal judges who have the last word on that. The problems lie with prosecutors and trial judges who want to be seen as tough on crime for electoral gain.

    The problems lie with prosecutors and trial judges who want to be seen as tough on crime for electoral gain.

    The popular will is the problem?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    No, human nature and institutional design. Plus ignorance and attention span.
  53. @joe webb
    the PCR is out on a tear again. First, no stats on race and crime. Second, no stats on comparative rates of imprisonment, racially, with other countries. Whites commit no more crime here than in Europe.

    So we got the liberal anti-racist crusader here too. gawd.

    What country , stats again, will give you a more fair shake in the courtroom, etc.? Ask yourself what country you would rather do jail time in, assuming that race is factored in...that is, being with Whites as opposed to darkies while in the slammer.

    Bender, going 'round the bend as usual.

    Then there are the familiar crowd of professional Anti types here on this list. Remains me of the Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn novels wherein the father of Huck rambles on about "The Govment."

    The Left and the Right both have their goofs, although there are far more on the Left.

    JW

    “The Left and the Right both have their goofs, although there are far more on the Left.”

    Joe Webb,

    The trueactivist.com (linked below) adds documented evidence to to your finding.

    http://www.trueactivist.com/see-the-names-of-the-senators-who-voted-against-the-audit-of-the-federal-reserve/

    Remember how the Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Manes addressed a concert and declared that she’s “ashamed to be from Texas” because of her anger with President G.W. Bush’s immoral and unnecessary wars?

    As a life-long Pennsylvania resident, now I can say that I am ashamed of Senator Robert Casey (Pa/D) for his voting “nay” on Rand Paul’s vital bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

    It’s 5:17 pm (EST), Joe Webb, and do you know where your US Senator is?

  54. @Chris Mallory
    The funny thing is immigrant, Boom Boom Girl Michelle Malkin is trying to discredit DNA because it has been used to put criminal cops in prison.

    Do you think it was funny for the killer of Marcia Trimble and Sarah Des Prez to escape justice for 35 years?

    I believe criminal cops should be in prison if DNA proves their guilt.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    I have never seen a cop who wasn' the a criminal. But MM is a NeoCon pet, so for her to be attacking DNA is rather humorous.
  55. Remember those shysters John Yoo and Jay Bybee? Both were high-ranking “Justice” Department lawyers who advocated torture.

    Whatever became of them? you wonder. Well, Bybee’s a federal appellate judge (!), and Yoo is a law professor at the University of California (!).

    The “rule of law” carries on, lads!

  56. @joe webb
    the PCR is out on a tear again. First, no stats on race and crime. Second, no stats on comparative rates of imprisonment, racially, with other countries. Whites commit no more crime here than in Europe.

    So we got the liberal anti-racist crusader here too. gawd.

    What country , stats again, will give you a more fair shake in the courtroom, etc.? Ask yourself what country you would rather do jail time in, assuming that race is factored in...that is, being with Whites as opposed to darkies while in the slammer.

    Bender, going 'round the bend as usual.

    Then there are the familiar crowd of professional Anti types here on this list. Remains me of the Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn novels wherein the father of Huck rambles on about "The Govment."

    The Left and the Right both have their goofs, although there are far more on the Left.

    JW

    The US certainly has a bigger ethnic crime problem than most countries it might be conpared with but your faith based stats and fact free patriotism overlooks significant facts and conditions. One is its gun laws and number of guns which, unsurprisingly correlate with homicides and other gun deaths. Another is minimum sentences and three strikes and your out laws which have hardly infected other First World countries. Although police and prosecutors everywhere may succumb to pressure or other motive to gain convictions the distorting effect of having popular elections for prosecutors and judges who deal with criminal cases should be obvious. Nor do other countries have a free speech rule which is interpreted to allow defendants to be publicly slandered before trial by prosecution and media lynch mobs. Also, the antiquated grand jury system which has been replaced elsewhere is notorious for what ot allows prosecutors to get away with though one occasionally reads of grand juries failing to behave like lapdogs – maybe where race based PC is being resisted.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @joe webb
    "your faith based stats and fact free patriotism" clever.

    I use stats from Am Ren and I have even done a couple crime studies where I live.

    Blacks do about 7 or 8 times more crime than whites, and mexers do about 2-3 times more.
    Violent crime is even worse, although while blacks prefer robbery and rape, mxeers prefer burglary and child and other molestation.

    I predict more and more mexer crime, but not as as rambunctious as the blacks. This is cuz when they lack the memory of dirt mexico and begin to resent their low wages due to low IQ, 90 average, their crime is going to worsen particularly when their huge welfare transfers are reduced.

    Where I live in Silicon Va, the local papers crime beat is always mexer...no blacks to speak of left. Cops say you don't get even half of it in the papers.

    Cops know and the Dept of Justice knows. Just go there and get the stats yourself...since you are so clever.
    The most violent country in the world is Honduras. Murder capital. They are usually black and injun mix with a little white blood to boot.

    By the way, if you exclude fighting/assault, Whites are very crime free. We do fight, and that is good, good for the race, why we conquered the world, and why we will abandon the third world as hopeless, when we have figured it out that White Man's (Christian) Burden to Help the natives is another Altruism based Blunder.

    So, all my politics is fact based. I discovered the books finally on coloreds and jews a bit late, but those books, along with Biology/Evolution is the Key to all of it. Now all we have to do is come to terms with our curse of Surplus Altruism.
    JW
  57. @enemy of earth
    In my humble opinion the justice system is FUBAR because the emphasis is on rehabilitation when it should be on restitution.

    Excuse my amazement at the two ideas you have exposed. 1. The US [criminal] justice system emphasises rehabilitation???!!! If one had to choose one word I would have thought “retrubution” would be closer. 2. Restitution is possible – from whom? – from what source? Short of handing over criminals to victims as their suitably shackled slaves how?

    • Replies: @enemy of earth
    Keeping criminals incarcerated is pointless. They should be allowed to work so they can provide restitution and their own sustenance. They should not subsist off the fruits of others' labor.
  58. @Johann Ricke

    The problems lie with prosecutors and trial judges who want to be seen as tough on crime for electoral gain.
     
    The popular will is the problem?

    No, human nature and institutional design. Plus ignorance and attention span.

  59. If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be damned…
    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, and by necessity, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

    • Agree: jacques sheete, utu
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    That is so well thought out that I want to know if you or anyone is actively promoting these ideas to politicians, and with what success.
    , @JoeFour
    Here is a link to a very interesting article that discusses the history of municipal policing and asks the question "Are Cops Constitutional?"... highly recommended.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm
  60. @Wizard of Oz
    Excuse my amazement at the two ideas you have exposed. 1. The US [criminal] justice system emphasises rehabilitation???!!! If one had to choose one word I would have thought "retrubution" would be closer. 2. Restitution is possible - from whom? - from what source? Short of handing over criminals to victims as their suitably shackled slaves how?

    Keeping criminals incarcerated is pointless. They should be allowed to work so they can provide restitution and their own sustenance. They should not subsist off the fruits of others’ labor.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well I withdraw any suggestions of logical incoherence. But you do raise the further question of how the guilty are to be compelled to support themselves and earn/produce enough to make restitution. Starving a few to death would no doubt show that the system had indeed changed then I suppose a reprint of some of the Old South's books on practical slave management could provide the know how.
    , @Alden
    The criminal would have to work a very well paid job to afford rent, food, transportation to work and restitution as well.

    Most street criminals don't work anyway. The White collars earn good money from their criminal scams, but after they are caught they don't have money for restitution.

    Restitution estimates are usually as criminal as the original crime. Every stolen car victim claims he had a complete $8,000 set of plumbers tools or 7 brand new laptops or whatever in the car.

    Take it from one who knows, restitution is almost never paid.
  61. @enemy of earth
    In my humble opinion the justice system is FUBAR because the emphasis is on rehabilitation when it should be on restitution.

    “the emphasis is on rehabilitation” – not in the US. Actually rehabilitation is a dirty word.

  62. @anonymous
    Polls typically show that two of the most distrusted categories of people are politicians and lawyers. Judges are a combination of both. They're no Solomons. People become lawyers for pecuniary motives so what sort of moral fiber can one expect from such mercenaries? Power is a corrupting influence for most people and that holds true for those with a badge. Throw in a culture of impunity and mutual backscratching along with a 'no snitching' policy and this is what you get. The whole thing is a business that has all these parasites making a good living from it, just a conveyor belt machine feeding the goods into it. It's not a justice system it's a money machine; anybody who gets sucked into it is sure to lose.

    Lawyers are disliked and distrusted, often justifiably. Back in 1969, Murray Teigh Bloom wrote “The Trouble With Lawyers,” in which he made this salient statement: “The law–which is made by lawyers, administered by lawyers, and adjudged by lawyers–is inevitably protective of the stupid, lazy, and inept practitioner.”

    Of course, there are able, principled lawyers out there–Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Napolitano et al. come to mind–but there are also cretins like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Bill and Hillary Clinton. . . .

    Judges? Nothing inherently noble about them. As the saying goes, a judge is a lawyer who knew a politician.

  63. @David In TN
    Do you think it was funny for the killer of Marcia Trimble and Sarah Des Prez to escape justice for 35 years?

    I believe criminal cops should be in prison if DNA proves their guilt.

    I have never seen a cop who wasn’ the a criminal. But MM is a NeoCon pet, so for her to be attacking DNA is rather humorous.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    Ms. Malkin's point was that some DNA, from skin for example, can sometimes be transferred from very casual contact.
  64. @MarkinLA
    Well I would generally agree with OCR on the corruption and laziness in the justice system but like a lot of his stuff he gets cause and effect wrong. For instance:

    One is the privatization of prisons, which has turned them into profit-making enterprises ever needful of more labor to exploit, which adds to the pressure for convictions


    Totally wrong. Private prisons came about because the state agencies charged with building new prisons couldn't build them fast enough to keep up with our burgeoning immigrant communities.

    The reason why there are more convictions is because there are ever more laws. In the past if you punched your neighbor in the face or told him you were going to "kick his ass" the cops would come by and try to calm you down and get everybody to shake hands. Now they try to pin a felony conviction on somebody for "making terrorists threats". Some of this came about because in our present drug addled world those threats became real and people got hurt.

    The lady who cuts my hair got into a verbal cat-fight with his ex-wife over some old coot. Common sense would say that neither of them posed any real threat to anybody. The end result was that both of them had to plead guilty to a felony. By the time they paid the fines and went to the anger management classes it cost each of them close to 10 grand.

    Want a retraining order on somebody. It seems the asking party merely has to show up to get one - no proof needed. The object of the order has to convince the judge - not the other way around.

    However, in many areas it seems like the government wants everybody to be a paper felon. Copy a CD and you are subject to 5 years in prison. Don't worry they will let you off with 3 months probation and a low level felony. How convenient for the government if everybody is a felon.

    Mr. Roberts assumed readers of this site were educated and aware of America’s massive incarceration rate, so provided no links to data. Others think that entertainment TV shows provide information on plea bargaining. In its current form, the “deal” is that if you plead guilty or the government will pile on numerous other vague charges that could put you in prison five times longer. For example, money laundering has become spending money from a crime. Denying a charge has become perjury. Not helping the prosecutor collect evidence has become obstruction of justice. Not snitching on friends and relatives has become conspiracy.

    The stories are endless. California’s state prison union is the biggest campaign donor in the state, and lobbies for increased penalties, and higher pay, which doubled over the past two decades. A great example was in the national news just 12 days ago. A guy installed a device to cover his license plate while going thru a toll booth. He was caught by a highway patrolmen, arrested on a FELONY charge for evading the $1.50 toll and tossed in jail.

    One of the greatest abuses is the uses of snitches, which PBS documented back in 1999.

    • Replies: @Alden
    Only the ignorant and naive believe anything on PBS
    It's totally obvious you know absolutely nothing about criminals or the criminal justice system. Your post was just a series of clips and pastes.
  65. @Alden
    The purpose of prisons and jails is not to reform the criminals Tge purpose of prisons is to protect the rest of us from the criminals.
    When the state's passed laws that ended judges being able to let the criminals off with probation or short sentences and substituted standard sentenced, crime droppedWhy? Because the judges could not let them off but were forced by law to send them to prison for a long time.

    Another good law is 3 strikes you're out and off to prison for the rest of your life.
    When the criminals get out after the first 2 convictions they stop committing crimes because the penalty for another conviction is long, long sentences without possibility of parole.
    I should note that almost all the 3 strikes and taking away judicial discretion sentencing laws were passed by referendums, the voice of the people sick and tired of crime, not by liberal legislators.

    The courts, jails, prisons and parole are the place society puts the blacks and Browns who can't make it in private sector jobs. Some are the affirmative action guards, court clerks etc. Others are the black and brown criminals
    The Whites are the liberals and Jews who love criminals and want them running amuck and us goyim who just want to be able to take a bus home after dark and not be raped, robbed or killed.

    I’m with the Draco the lawgiver. When asked why he had fixed the punishment of death for most offences, answered that he considered these lesser crimes to deserve it, and he had no greater punishment for more important ones.

    Consider the latest spate of computer crimes, such as ransomware. Someone spent a lot of time thinking about how to steal money from other people by putting them through great anguish. This was not a mistake in judgement, but a deliberate act of cruelty for self gain. Anyone who would do that does not deserve to live among decent people. Send them to the zoo to be used as lion feed. At least some good will come of it.

  66. @enemy of earth
    Keeping criminals incarcerated is pointless. They should be allowed to work so they can provide restitution and their own sustenance. They should not subsist off the fruits of others' labor.

    Well I withdraw any suggestions of logical incoherence. But you do raise the further question of how the guilty are to be compelled to support themselves and earn/produce enough to make restitution. Starving a few to death would no doubt show that the system had indeed changed then I suppose a reprint of some of the Old South’s books on practical slave management could provide the know how.

  67. @anarchyst
    If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be damned…
    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, and by necessity, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

    That is so well thought out that I want to know if you or anyone is actively promoting these ideas to politicians, and with what success.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    If I used my real name, I would be the target of every police officer, prosecutor, court and government official in the country. I would not be able to leave my home without being harassed...or worse...
    Sad to say, THAT is the way things are in the "good ol' USA"...
    Politicians are only interested in maintaining the status quo. It's all about POWER--pure unadulterated POWER.
    You see, the "justice industry" (police, public officials, judges, prosecutors, other court officials, and corrections officials, all have a vested interested, as the system is always in need of "warm bodies" to keep the "justice system" going and to justify their existence and jobs. It's a business, a rather lucrative one, which quite often disregards the true "rule of law". THEY are the ones making the "rules", ever changing, the LAW being whatever they say it is...
    Add to that, "civil asset forfeiture" (actually legalized robbery and theft) is also used to "maintain the system...
    Feel free to take my ideas and disseminate them...
    Regards,
  68. @Wizard of Oz
    That is so well thought out that I want to know if you or anyone is actively promoting these ideas to politicians, and with what success.

    If I used my real name, I would be the target of every police officer, prosecutor, court and government official in the country. I would not be able to leave my home without being harassed…or worse…
    Sad to say, THAT is the way things are in the “good ol’ USA”…
    Politicians are only interested in maintaining the status quo. It’s all about POWER–pure unadulterated POWER.
    You see, the “justice industry” (police, public officials, judges, prosecutors, other court officials, and corrections officials, all have a vested interested, as the system is always in need of “warm bodies” to keep the “justice system” going and to justify their existence and jobs. It’s a business, a rather lucrative one, which quite often disregards the true “rule of law”. THEY are the ones making the “rules”, ever changing, the LAW being whatever they say it is…
    Add to that, “civil asset forfeiture” (actually legalized robbery and theft) is also used to “maintain the system…
    Feel free to take my ideas and disseminate them…
    Regards,

  69. P.C. Roberts, supposedly the enemy of prosecutors, didn’t write a single word attacking Michael Nifong’s attempt to put three innocent men in prison for decades. Not one word.

  70. @anarchyst
    If anything, police should be held to a higher standard than that of the public…As it stands now, police can commit crimes with impunity because, in most situations, they investigate themselves…Behavior that would get an ordinary citizen charged, convicted and incarcerated is routinely ignored by “the powers that be” because police are considered to be “above the law” as the “law” is whatever they say it is, the Constitution be damned…
    Ever notice that police unions are “fraternal”? This should tell you something. The “thin-blue-line” is a gang, little different than street gangs–at least when it comes to “covering-up” their questionable and quite often, illegal and criminal behavior.
    In today’s day and age, “officer safety” trumps de-escalation of force. This, in part, is due to the militarization of the police along with training in Israeli police tactics. This becomes a problem, with the “us vs. them” attitude that is fosters, along with the fact that Israel is a very different place, being on a constant “war footing”, and by necessity, its police tactics are very different.
    There are too many instances of police being “given a pass”, even when incontrovertible video and audio evidence is presented. Grand juries, guided by police-friendly prosecutors, quite often refuse to charge those police officers who abuse their authority.
    Police officers, who want to do the right thing, are quite often marginalized and put into harms way, by their own brethren…When a police officer is beating on someone that is already restrained while yelling, “stop resisting” THAT is but one reason police have a “bad name” in many instances…this makes the “good cops” who are standing around, witnessing their “brethren in blue” beating on a restrained suspect, culpable as well…
    Here are changes that can help reduce police-induced violence:
    1. Get rid of police unions. Police unions (fraternities) protect the guilty, and are responsible for the massive whitewashing of questionable police behavior that is presently being committed.
    2. Eliminate both “absolute” and “qualified” immunity for all public officials. This includes, prosecutors and judges, police and firefighters, code enforcement and child protective services officials, and others who deal with the citizenry. The threat of being sued personally would encourage them to behave themselves. Require police officers to be “bonded” by an insurance company, with their own funds. No bond= no job.
    3. Any public funds disbursed to citizens as a result of police misconduct should come out of police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    4. Regular drug-testing of police officers as well as incident-based drug testing should take place whenever an officer is involved in a violent situation with a citizen–no exceptions.
    5. Testing for steroid use should be a part of the drug testing program. You know damn well, many police officers “bulk up” with the “help” of steroids. Steroids also affect users mentally as well, making them more aggressive. The potential for abuse of citizens increases greatly with steroid use.
    6. Internal affairs should only be used for disagreements between individual officers–NOT for investigations involving citizen abuse. State-level investigations should be mandatory for all suspected abuses involving citizens.
    7. Prosecutors should be charged with malfeasance IF any evidence implicating police officer misconduct is not presented to the grand jury.
    8. A national or state-by-state database of abusive individuals who should NEVER be allowed to perform police work should be established–a “blacklist” of abusive (former) police officers.
    9. Most people are unaware that police have special “rules” that prohibit them from being questioned for 48 hours. This allows them to “get their stories straight” and makes it easier to “cover up” bad police behavior. Police must be subject to the same laws as civilians.
    10. All police should be required to wear bodycams and utilize dashcams that cannot be turned off. Any police officers who causes a dash or body cam to be turned off should be summarily fired–no excuses. Today’s body and dash cams are reliable enough to withstand harsh treatment. Body and dashcam footage should be uploaded to a public channel “on the cloud” for public perusal.
    11. All interrogations must be video and audio recorded. Police should be prohibited from lying or fabricating stories in order to get suspects to confess. False confessions ARE a problem in many departments. Unknown to most people, police can lie with impunity while civilians can be charged with lying to police…fair? I think not…
    12. Any legislation passed that restricts the rights of ordinary citizens, such as firearms magazine capacity limits, types of weapons allowed, or restrictive concealed-carry laws should apply equally to police. No special exemptions to be given to police. Laws must be equally applied.
    Police work is not inherently dangerous…there are many other professions that are much more dangerous.
    A little “Andy Taylor” could go a long way in allaying fears that citizens have of police.
    That being said, I have no problem with police officers who do their job in a fair, conscientious manner…however, it is time to call to task those police officers who only “protect and serve” themselves.

    Here is a link to a very interesting article that discusses the history of municipal policing and asks the question “Are Cops Constitutional?”… highly recommended.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    “Are Cops Constitutional?”
     
    A better question seems to be whether the cornstitution itself is legit. Short answer.: Probably not. It's another fraud.

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]
    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254
     
    , @Ted Bell
    Thank you for that.

    Aside from any constitutional problems, I've been pointing out for years that, in most jurisdictions, governments never got around to formally passing laws giving police any power. In most of the country, a police arrest is legally identical to a citizen's arrest. The distinction doesn't even exist. It's not legislation, but mere "policy" that makes an officer's arrest any different from the now obscure and ridiculed concept of a citizen's arrest. Sheriffs are a completely different subject. But city police are legally nothing more than security guards, who happen to work for the government.

    I'm sure that plenty of cops will object to that charge. If you can point me to SIGNED LEGISLATION defining a municipal police officer's arrest as different from a citizen's arrest, I'll happily withdraw the claim, and apologize.
  71. @JoeFour
    Here is a link to a very interesting article that discusses the history of municipal policing and asks the question "Are Cops Constitutional?"... highly recommended.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    “Are Cops Constitutional?”

    A better question seems to be whether the cornstitution itself is legit. Short answer.: Probably not. It’s another fraud.

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]

    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254

    • Replies: @JoeFour
    Thanks for the link.

    Given the fearful monster the federal government is and has been, the people who were suspicious of the Constitution from the beginning were well justified in their suspicions.
  72. @Chris Mallory
    I have never seen a cop who wasn' the a criminal. But MM is a NeoCon pet, so for her to be attacking DNA is rather humorous.

    Ms. Malkin’s point was that some DNA, from skin for example, can sometimes be transferred from very casual contact.

  73. About a year ago, a friend of mine was stopped for a random traffic ticket. I never asked what, but he ended up not even getting the ticket. (he’s a lousy driver, so I don’t question the initial stop at all) When the cop asked the usual question about weapons in the car, he said there was a rifle in a locked case, in the trunk. Keep in mind, this was a trivial traffic infraction, and he was an army veteran, with no criminal record at all. And even here in California, it’s perfectly legal to have a gun locked in the trunk. Of course, the cops decided that simple possession of a completely legal weapon constitutes probable cause for a complete search of the car. The only thing they found was the locked rifle case, exactly as my friend described it. After cutting the lock off, the cop found a legal (at the time) AR15, with a 10 round magazine held in by the then standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines. Contrary to popular belief, possession of 30 round magazines was still legal in California until the first of this year, provided they were acquired before they were banned. The cop, however, arrested him for possession of a machine gun, and 2 high capacity magazines. Yes, I saw the arrest report, and it explicitly said “machine gun.” Because of that wording, he was held without bail. They got a search warrant for his home, and confiscated his other completely legal firearms and ammunition. Once he finally got to see a judge, after THIRTY SIX DAYS in jail, the prosecution announced that they couldn’t find any crime to charge him with, so they dropped the case. As a final slap in the face, they still made him spend one more day in jail, while they filed his release paperwork. Again, HE WAS NEVER FORMALLY CHARGED WITH ANYTHING.

    He was released to find that he now owed over $3,000 in impound fees for his car, he’d been fired from his job, and his ex wife had been granted sole custody of their children, because he now had a very serious arrest record. (with no charges filed) Between the car and his lawyer, he was already out about $10,000, and they still refuse to return about $8,000 worth of property, a year later. Including the lost wages for the month+ in jail, that arrest cost him well over $20,000, his job, and the 50% custody he had of his children. But because he was released, the system gets to pat themselves on the back, and claim “justice was served.”

    • Replies: @joe webb
    I too have had a run-in with local cops and a legal gun. News to me that the law is as you state. I have always understood that the ammo and the gun be separated...like one in trunk and the other in glove box. I don't know how long that policy has been in effect but seems like forever.

    You friend was not smart to have a loaded weapon in his trunk..

    Anyhow, try this in Mexico and do not collect get out of jail card.. And maybe thousands of dollars in bribes , etc. Or anywhere else in
    the world.

    JW
    , @Alden
    So because of your friends problems we should let the blacks and Hispanics run rampant and kill us all?
  74. @JoeFour
    Here is a link to a very interesting article that discusses the history of municipal policing and asks the question "Are Cops Constitutional?"... highly recommended.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

    Thank you for that.

    Aside from any constitutional problems, I’ve been pointing out for years that, in most jurisdictions, governments never got around to formally passing laws giving police any power. In most of the country, a police arrest is legally identical to a citizen’s arrest. The distinction doesn’t even exist. It’s not legislation, but mere “policy” that makes an officer’s arrest any different from the now obscure and ridiculed concept of a citizen’s arrest. Sheriffs are a completely different subject. But city police are legally nothing more than security guards, who happen to work for the government.

    I’m sure that plenty of cops will object to that charge. If you can point me to SIGNED LEGISLATION defining a municipal police officer’s arrest as different from a citizen’s arrest, I’ll happily withdraw the claim, and apologize.

    • Replies: @JoeFour
    You're welcome.

    Here's another paper from the same author that explores the history of the grand jury ... also highly recommended.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm
  75. @Wizard of Oz
    The US certainly has a bigger ethnic crime problem than most countries it might be conpared with but your faith based stats and fact free patriotism overlooks significant facts and conditions. One is its gun laws and number of guns which, unsurprisingly correlate with homicides and other gun deaths. Another is minimum sentences and three strikes and your out laws which have hardly infected other First World countries. Although police and prosecutors everywhere may succumb to pressure or other motive to gain convictions the distorting effect of having popular elections for prosecutors and judges who deal with criminal cases should be obvious. Nor do other countries have a free speech rule which is interpreted to allow defendants to be publicly slandered before trial by prosecution and media lynch mobs. Also, the antiquated grand jury system which has been replaced elsewhere is notorious for what ot allows prosecutors to get away with though one occasionally reads of grand juries failing to behave like lapdogs - maybe where race based PC is being resisted.

    “your faith based stats and fact free patriotism” clever.

    I use stats from Am Ren and I have even done a couple crime studies where I live.

    Blacks do about 7 or 8 times more crime than whites, and mexers do about 2-3 times more.
    Violent crime is even worse, although while blacks prefer robbery and rape, mxeers prefer burglary and child and other molestation.

    I predict more and more mexer crime, but not as as rambunctious as the blacks. This is cuz when they lack the memory of dirt mexico and begin to resent their low wages due to low IQ, 90 average, their crime is going to worsen particularly when their huge welfare transfers are reduced.

    Where I live in Silicon Va, the local papers crime beat is always mexer…no blacks to speak of left. Cops say you don’t get even half of it in the papers.

    Cops know and the Dept of Justice knows. Just go there and get the stats yourself…since you are so clever.
    The most violent country in the world is Honduras. Murder capital. They are usually black and injun mix with a little white blood to boot.

    By the way, if you exclude fighting/assault, Whites are very crime free. We do fight, and that is good, good for the race, why we conquered the world, and why we will abandon the third world as hopeless, when we have figured it out that White Man’s (Christian) Burden to Help the natives is another Altruism based Blunder.

    So, all my politics is fact based. I discovered the books finally on coloreds and jews a bit late, but those books, along with Biology/Evolution is the Key to all of it. Now all we have to do is come to terms with our curse of Surplus Altruism.
    JW

  76. @Ted Bell
    About a year ago, a friend of mine was stopped for a random traffic ticket. I never asked what, but he ended up not even getting the ticket. (he's a lousy driver, so I don't question the initial stop at all) When the cop asked the usual question about weapons in the car, he said there was a rifle in a locked case, in the trunk. Keep in mind, this was a trivial traffic infraction, and he was an army veteran, with no criminal record at all. And even here in California, it's perfectly legal to have a gun locked in the trunk. Of course, the cops decided that simple possession of a completely legal weapon constitutes probable cause for a complete search of the car. The only thing they found was the locked rifle case, exactly as my friend described it. After cutting the lock off, the cop found a legal (at the time) AR15, with a 10 round magazine held in by the then standard "bullet button" legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines. Contrary to popular belief, possession of 30 round magazines was still legal in California until the first of this year, provided they were acquired before they were banned. The cop, however, arrested him for possession of a machine gun, and 2 high capacity magazines. Yes, I saw the arrest report, and it explicitly said "machine gun." Because of that wording, he was held without bail. They got a search warrant for his home, and confiscated his other completely legal firearms and ammunition. Once he finally got to see a judge, after THIRTY SIX DAYS in jail, the prosecution announced that they couldn't find any crime to charge him with, so they dropped the case. As a final slap in the face, they still made him spend one more day in jail, while they filed his release paperwork. Again, HE WAS NEVER FORMALLY CHARGED WITH ANYTHING.

    He was released to find that he now owed over $3,000 in impound fees for his car, he'd been fired from his job, and his ex wife had been granted sole custody of their children, because he now had a very serious arrest record. (with no charges filed) Between the car and his lawyer, he was already out about $10,000, and they still refuse to return about $8,000 worth of property, a year later. Including the lost wages for the month+ in jail, that arrest cost him well over $20,000, his job, and the 50% custody he had of his children. But because he was released, the system gets to pat themselves on the back, and claim "justice was served."

    I too have had a run-in with local cops and a legal gun. News to me that the law is as you state. I have always understood that the ammo and the gun be separated…like one in trunk and the other in glove box. I don’t know how long that policy has been in effect but seems like forever.

    You friend was not smart to have a loaded weapon in his trunk..

    Anyhow, try this in Mexico and do not collect get out of jail card.. And maybe thousands of dollars in bribes , etc. Or anywhere else in
    the world.

    JW

    • Replies: @Ted Bell
    It wasn't loaded. Even the arrest report notes that it wasn't loaded. He'd kept that rifle in his trunk for as long as I'd known him, to that point. I even did some work on it for him a few times, (he's not very mechanically minded) and I'd never seen a single round. I have no idea where, or even if, he kept any in the car. I can only assume he did, but I never cared enough to ask. I know he had a case or two at home, though, and he went to the range every few weeks.

    I'm as solid a second amendment guy as anyone, but I'm also practical. I've had my own dealings with overzealous cops, though never close to that level. (I was once held at gunpoint for over an hour, for possession of an empty 1911 magazine) I'd told him before that nothing good would come from keeping that rifle in his car. It was just an old habit, from when his ex wife wouldn't let him keep a gun in the house.

    My point wasn't even about guns, it was about the insanity of a "justice" system that destroys a man's life, just to intimidate him out of exercising his constitutionally guaranteed rights. They fully admitted that he did nothing illegal. But only after they'd cost him his job, and half what he makes in a year. And they still took his children away from him, purely on the grounds that he'd been arrested for possession of a machine gun, that they admit never existed.

    , @Ted Bell
    And the difference between here and Mexico?

    MY FRIEND BROKE NO LAWS HERE. Yes, in Mexico, AR15s are illegal to own. Here in California, as of the time he was arrested for it, they were perfectly legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in Mexico, that will get you thrown in jail here, too, so your point is completely absurd. Different countries have different laws. And since Mexico has a far lower incarceration rate, your point is also infuriatingly disingenuous. The Land of the Free locks up more people than any society in history. You need to get your head out of the propaganda, and look at what's happening around you.

    Yes, Mexican police are known to occasionally lock up innocent people without charges, and blackmail them for bribes. But they don't steal half a year's pay from you, and take your kids away, while calling it "justice."

    I'm really trying to be civil, and understand your point of view. But your implication that my friend somehow got away with something would get you punched if you said it to my face. There was no "get out of jail card." He wasn't released on a technicality. He was released because the prosecutor came in to court and told the judge that he couldn't find a single thing to charge him with. Complete absence of a crime is not a loophole.

    I have to stop now. I've already written and erased too many things that would never get through moderation. If you're so convinced of the greatness of our justice system, feel free to explain it to a 5 year old boy who hasn't seen his daddy in 13 months, because some dirtbag judge doesn't like the laws he swore to uphold.
    , @Alden
    I don't own a gun but I belong to the NRA. I joined not because I care about guns, but because until Trump was elected the NRA was the only organization that was successful against those minions of Satan, liberals. I occasionally skim through the magazine and newsletters of the NRA

    Gun owners are always blathering their opinions about gun + ammo laws. But they don't seem to check their state, county and city laws and ordinances.

    If you're going to own a gun, use the NRA knowledge about the laws in your locality. Lots of people keep guns in the trunk especially if they have kids. Most cops I have known kept it in the trunk if they had kids.
    Know the laws. Use the expertise of the NRA. Many police have little interest in guns. It's just a tool, like a mechanics wrench. Once a year to qualify and that's it. The average cop really doesn't know the differences between various types of rifles and certainly not ammo.

    Point is, do not expect the cop who sees your gun to know what it is or if it is legal or not.

    But 37 days in jail with no bail hearing? No prima facie hearing? No prelim hearing?
  77. @joe webb
    I too have had a run-in with local cops and a legal gun. News to me that the law is as you state. I have always understood that the ammo and the gun be separated...like one in trunk and the other in glove box. I don't know how long that policy has been in effect but seems like forever.

    You friend was not smart to have a loaded weapon in his trunk..

    Anyhow, try this in Mexico and do not collect get out of jail card.. And maybe thousands of dollars in bribes , etc. Or anywhere else in
    the world.

    JW

    It wasn’t loaded. Even the arrest report notes that it wasn’t loaded. He’d kept that rifle in his trunk for as long as I’d known him, to that point. I even did some work on it for him a few times, (he’s not very mechanically minded) and I’d never seen a single round. I have no idea where, or even if, he kept any in the car. I can only assume he did, but I never cared enough to ask. I know he had a case or two at home, though, and he went to the range every few weeks.

    I’m as solid a second amendment guy as anyone, but I’m also practical. I’ve had my own dealings with overzealous cops, though never close to that level. (I was once held at gunpoint for over an hour, for possession of an empty 1911 magazine) I’d told him before that nothing good would come from keeping that rifle in his car. It was just an old habit, from when his ex wife wouldn’t let him keep a gun in the house.

    My point wasn’t even about guns, it was about the insanity of a “justice” system that destroys a man’s life, just to intimidate him out of exercising his constitutionally guaranteed rights. They fully admitted that he did nothing illegal. But only after they’d cost him his job, and half what he makes in a year. And they still took his children away from him, purely on the grounds that he’d been arrested for possession of a machine gun, that they admit never existed.

  78. @jacques sheete

    “Are Cops Constitutional?”
     
    A better question seems to be whether the cornstitution itself is legit. Short answer.: Probably not. It's another fraud.

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]
    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    mises.org/daily/4254
     

    Thanks for the link.

    Given the fearful monster the federal government is and has been, the people who were suspicious of the Constitution from the beginning were well justified in their suspicions.

  79. @Ted Bell
    Thank you for that.

    Aside from any constitutional problems, I've been pointing out for years that, in most jurisdictions, governments never got around to formally passing laws giving police any power. In most of the country, a police arrest is legally identical to a citizen's arrest. The distinction doesn't even exist. It's not legislation, but mere "policy" that makes an officer's arrest any different from the now obscure and ridiculed concept of a citizen's arrest. Sheriffs are a completely different subject. But city police are legally nothing more than security guards, who happen to work for the government.

    I'm sure that plenty of cops will object to that charge. If you can point me to SIGNED LEGISLATION defining a municipal police officer's arrest as different from a citizen's arrest, I'll happily withdraw the claim, and apologize.

    You’re welcome.

    Here’s another paper from the same author that explores the history of the grand jury … also highly recommended.

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/runaway.htm

  80. @joe webb
    I too have had a run-in with local cops and a legal gun. News to me that the law is as you state. I have always understood that the ammo and the gun be separated...like one in trunk and the other in glove box. I don't know how long that policy has been in effect but seems like forever.

    You friend was not smart to have a loaded weapon in his trunk..

    Anyhow, try this in Mexico and do not collect get out of jail card.. And maybe thousands of dollars in bribes , etc. Or anywhere else in
    the world.

    JW

    And the difference between here and Mexico?

    MY FRIEND BROKE NO LAWS HERE. Yes, in Mexico, AR15s are illegal to own. Here in California, as of the time he was arrested for it, they were perfectly legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in Mexico, that will get you thrown in jail here, too, so your point is completely absurd. Different countries have different laws. And since Mexico has a far lower incarceration rate, your point is also infuriatingly disingenuous. The Land of the Free locks up more people than any society in history. You need to get your head out of the propaganda, and look at what’s happening around you.

    Yes, Mexican police are known to occasionally lock up innocent people without charges, and blackmail them for bribes. But they don’t steal half a year’s pay from you, and take your kids away, while calling it “justice.”

    I’m really trying to be civil, and understand your point of view. But your implication that my friend somehow got away with something would get you punched if you said it to my face. There was no “get out of jail card.” He wasn’t released on a technicality. He was released because the prosecutor came in to court and told the judge that he couldn’t find a single thing to charge him with. Complete absence of a crime is not a loophole.

    I have to stop now. I’ve already written and erased too many things that would never get through moderation. If you’re so convinced of the greatness of our justice system, feel free to explain it to a 5 year old boy who hasn’t seen his daddy in 13 months, because some dirtbag judge doesn’t like the laws he swore to uphold.

    • Replies: @joe webb
    "I’m really trying to be civil" but you
    are furious and I am 'disingenuous" which is pretty talk for a lie.

    As I read the post, correctly or not, it was stated, I think, that the gun had a magazine in it and it was loaded. That is illegal and has been for as long as I can remember...california.

    So, please correct me if that is not true.

    AS for your left-wing talking point about the US locking up more people,, than anybody is history...nonsense. And the main reason we have a lot of people locked up is Negroes who are about half the prison population. They do the crime and ergo do the time, except for a large number who evade thru affirmative action, going to jail. What I mean by nonsense, is that if the turd worlders were not here, the lock-up rates would fall in line with Europe's...whites.

    Then the mexers are coming. As they get used to the System and are citizens they will commit more and more crime, as they appear to be doing. I think there is normal statistical work that documents this, and I certainly see it where I live, compared to just 10 years ago The immigrant legal or not, keeps his nose clean. His kids get wise to gaming the system, and on it comes.
    The only difference with Blacks and Mexicans is that the blacks seem like they will continue to be the worst...consistent with their lower IQ and non-negotiable demands. That is Good, because it gives the cops more reason to shoot to kill. We too.

    So you would punch me in the face for remarking anything about your friend, informed and correct or not? You are a nut case.
    irritability is a sign of depression, etc. maybe you're not white.

    JW
    , @Alden
    The law in every state requires that every arrestee be brought to court for a bail bond hearing within 48 hours of the arrest except during the 3 day holidays

    So where was the prosecutor who said there was no crime at the bail bond hearing? Did your friend not have a bond hearing?
    , @Alden
    The criminal court judge who adjudicated the gun charge had absolutely nothing to do with the civil family court custody case.
    , @Alden
    If you don't mind my asking, what county was this? Marin? San Mateo? They are the only majority White, low crime counties I can think of in the entire state.

    I can see something like this happening in Marin where the crime rate is so low.
  81. @Ted Bell
    And the difference between here and Mexico?

    MY FRIEND BROKE NO LAWS HERE. Yes, in Mexico, AR15s are illegal to own. Here in California, as of the time he was arrested for it, they were perfectly legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in Mexico, that will get you thrown in jail here, too, so your point is completely absurd. Different countries have different laws. And since Mexico has a far lower incarceration rate, your point is also infuriatingly disingenuous. The Land of the Free locks up more people than any society in history. You need to get your head out of the propaganda, and look at what's happening around you.

    Yes, Mexican police are known to occasionally lock up innocent people without charges, and blackmail them for bribes. But they don't steal half a year's pay from you, and take your kids away, while calling it "justice."

    I'm really trying to be civil, and understand your point of view. But your implication that my friend somehow got away with something would get you punched if you said it to my face. There was no "get out of jail card." He wasn't released on a technicality. He was released because the prosecutor came in to court and told the judge that he couldn't find a single thing to charge him with. Complete absence of a crime is not a loophole.

    I have to stop now. I've already written and erased too many things that would never get through moderation. If you're so convinced of the greatness of our justice system, feel free to explain it to a 5 year old boy who hasn't seen his daddy in 13 months, because some dirtbag judge doesn't like the laws he swore to uphold.

    “I’m really trying to be civil” but you
    are furious and I am ‘disingenuous” which is pretty talk for a lie.

    As I read the post, correctly or not, it was stated, I think, that the gun had a magazine in it and it was loaded. That is illegal and has been for as long as I can remember…california.

    So, please correct me if that is not true.

    AS for your left-wing talking point about the US locking up more people,, than anybody is history…nonsense. And the main reason we have a lot of people locked up is Negroes who are about half the prison population. They do the crime and ergo do the time, except for a large number who evade thru affirmative action, going to jail. What I mean by nonsense, is that if the turd worlders were not here, the lock-up rates would fall in line with Europe’s…whites.

    Then the mexers are coming. As they get used to the System and are citizens they will commit more and more crime, as they appear to be doing. I think there is normal statistical work that documents this, and I certainly see it where I live, compared to just 10 years ago The immigrant legal or not, keeps his nose clean. His kids get wise to gaming the system, and on it comes.
    The only difference with Blacks and Mexicans is that the blacks seem like they will continue to be the worst…consistent with their lower IQ and non-negotiable demands. That is Good, because it gives the cops more reason to shoot to kill. We too.

    So you would punch me in the face for remarking anything about your friend, informed and correct or not? You are a nut case.
    irritability is a sign of depression, etc. maybe you’re not white.

    JW

    • Replies: @joe webb
    more. I quote your first missive. "After cutting the lock off, the cop found a legal (at the time) AR15, with a 10 round magazine held in by the then standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines. "

    Since the magazines were in the gun I 'assumed" that they were loaded, not unloaded. You did not state that they were unloaded. So were they loaded or not? (I just saw your later claim that the magazine was not loaded. Were there cartridges in the car?)

    Then, "standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines". what is a bullet button legal workaround? Is the AR-15 fully automatic or what? The civilian version of the military AR-15 is only semi-auto. IF he had the fully auto military version that would be illegal as far as I know. Or...what was the date of his arrest,and when were fully automatic weapons banned in California or elsewhere?

    Finally, are all 30 round magazines illegal now regardless of when they were purchased?

    I know the cops are often out of line. I have been hunted by the local sheriff's office for chasing courthouse gangsters 20 and then again, 8 years ago. In Mexico, I would have been dead long ago.

    But with the semi-universality of guns in this country, they have reason to be nervous...especially for guys who are ready to punch people out over mere words...like you.
    JW

  82. @joe webb
    "I’m really trying to be civil" but you
    are furious and I am 'disingenuous" which is pretty talk for a lie.

    As I read the post, correctly or not, it was stated, I think, that the gun had a magazine in it and it was loaded. That is illegal and has been for as long as I can remember...california.

    So, please correct me if that is not true.

    AS for your left-wing talking point about the US locking up more people,, than anybody is history...nonsense. And the main reason we have a lot of people locked up is Negroes who are about half the prison population. They do the crime and ergo do the time, except for a large number who evade thru affirmative action, going to jail. What I mean by nonsense, is that if the turd worlders were not here, the lock-up rates would fall in line with Europe's...whites.

    Then the mexers are coming. As they get used to the System and are citizens they will commit more and more crime, as they appear to be doing. I think there is normal statistical work that documents this, and I certainly see it where I live, compared to just 10 years ago The immigrant legal or not, keeps his nose clean. His kids get wise to gaming the system, and on it comes.
    The only difference with Blacks and Mexicans is that the blacks seem like they will continue to be the worst...consistent with their lower IQ and non-negotiable demands. That is Good, because it gives the cops more reason to shoot to kill. We too.

    So you would punch me in the face for remarking anything about your friend, informed and correct or not? You are a nut case.
    irritability is a sign of depression, etc. maybe you're not white.

    JW

    more. I quote your first missive. “After cutting the lock off, the cop found a legal (at the time) AR15, with a 10 round magazine held in by the then standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines. ”

    Since the magazines were in the gun I ‘assumed” that they were loaded, not unloaded. You did not state that they were unloaded. So were they loaded or not? (I just saw your later claim that the magazine was not loaded. Were there cartridges in the car?)

    Then, “standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines”. what is a bullet button legal workaround? Is the AR-15 fully automatic or what? The civilian version of the military AR-15 is only semi-auto. IF he had the fully auto military version that would be illegal as far as I know. Or…what was the date of his arrest,and when were fully automatic weapons banned in California or elsewhere?

    Finally, are all 30 round magazines illegal now regardless of when they were purchased?

    I know the cops are often out of line. I have been hunted by the local sheriff’s office for chasing courthouse gangsters 20 and then again, 8 years ago. In Mexico, I would have been dead long ago.

    But with the semi-universality of guns in this country, they have reason to be nervous…especially for guys who are ready to punch people out over mere words…like you.
    JW

    • Replies: @Ted Bell
    No, disingenuousness is not "pretty talk for a lie." To be disingenuous is to make a fraudulent implication, as you clearly did. Some of us find the English language to be more useful when words have actual meanings. But since you have trouble with big words, and since you've now moved in to outright lying, then yes, I'm calling you a liar. And a pathetic one, at that. Everything I wrote is still up there for everyone to see. Even you. Yet you choose to make up your own fallacious details, and attribute them to me. You're embarrassing yourself.

    On top of your pointless, accusatory arrogance, and your complete lack of reading comprehension, you're also clearly demonstrating your stupidity. Laws don't go in to effect before they're passed. People in this country are NEVER released without charges if they're found in possession of unregistered, fully automatic weapons. The AR15 is NOT a military weapon, nor is it fully automatic. (that would be either the M16, or the M4, some of which are fully automatic) And a bullet button is a device that locks the magazine in to the receiver, forcing the use of a tool to remove it, thereby making it meet California's standard at the time for a fixed magazine, WHICH IS WHY THE MAGAZINE WAS IN THE F***ING GUN, YOU STUPID JACKASS. Don't call me a liar for things YOU don't understand.

    I could play this game too. Since you were being chased by some sheriff's office, then I could say you're obviously a dangerous, heavily armed murderer, and they should have shot you. You've already told us all that the only reason anyone is in jail is because them damned darkies are all murders. I guess that must mean you're black, too, since you're a murderer. But I'm not going to just make up random bullshit about you, because I'm not a lying prick like you. I have no idea why you found it necessary to make up your own details about a disastrously wrongful incarceration, just to imply that someone you've never met deserved to have his life destroyed. And I don't care. You're wrong, you're lying, and you're flailing desperately, in a pathetic attempt to justify your delusions of omniscience. Since you're so certain the prosecutor failed in his duties, maybe you should focus your bullshit on him, and leave my COMPLETELY INNOCENT friend out of it.

    Yes, when you lie about what I've said, make up your own details about a situation you know nothing about, call me a liar, and accuse my deeply wronged friend of multiple felonies, you're damned right I'd punch you. Once again, since you're a blithering idiot, NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED. THE PROSECUTOR WALKED IN TO COURT AND TOLD THE JUDGE THAT NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED. Yet they robbed him of tens of thousands of dollars, his job, 37 days of his life, AND HIS CHILDREN. Anyone who wants to tell me that the county should have done even more to destroy him, is fully deserving of a good beat down. Since you've abundantly demonstrated your complete lack of honor, I can see why that sentiment puzzles you. For those of us with functioning testicles, my position on this is perfectly respectable.

    You clearly have an unnatural fetish for Mexican laws, as you keep implying that people should be executed for violating them up here. Once again, for the hard of thinking:
    THIS ISN'T MEXICO.

    And feel free to show us all which countries have more people in prisons than the United States. Now, or at any time in the past. Since you're accusing me of just spewing a "left-wing talking point", which you dismiss as nonsense, it should be a trivial matter to point out which countries have more than 2,173,800 people in jail.
    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cpus15.txt
    Put up, or shut up, you lying bastard.
  83. @Carlton Meyer
    Mr. Roberts assumed readers of this site were educated and aware of America's massive incarceration rate, so provided no links to data. Others think that entertainment TV shows provide information on plea bargaining. In its current form, the "deal" is that if you plead guilty or the government will pile on numerous other vague charges that could put you in prison five times longer. For example, money laundering has become spending money from a crime. Denying a charge has become perjury. Not helping the prosecutor collect evidence has become obstruction of justice. Not snitching on friends and relatives has become conspiracy.

    The stories are endless. California's state prison union is the biggest campaign donor in the state, and lobbies for increased penalties, and higher pay, which doubled over the past two decades. A great example was in the national news just 12 days ago. A guy installed a device to cover his license plate while going thru a toll booth. He was caught by a highway patrolmen, arrested on a FELONY charge for evading the $1.50 toll and tossed in jail.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UTmqGcuICM

    One of the greatest abuses is the uses of snitches, which PBS documented back in 1999.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKNOb0m1mo8

    Only the ignorant and naive believe anything on PBS
    It’s totally obvious you know absolutely nothing about criminals or the criminal justice system. Your post was just a series of clips and pastes.

  84. @Ted Bell
    About a year ago, a friend of mine was stopped for a random traffic ticket. I never asked what, but he ended up not even getting the ticket. (he's a lousy driver, so I don't question the initial stop at all) When the cop asked the usual question about weapons in the car, he said there was a rifle in a locked case, in the trunk. Keep in mind, this was a trivial traffic infraction, and he was an army veteran, with no criminal record at all. And even here in California, it's perfectly legal to have a gun locked in the trunk. Of course, the cops decided that simple possession of a completely legal weapon constitutes probable cause for a complete search of the car. The only thing they found was the locked rifle case, exactly as my friend described it. After cutting the lock off, the cop found a legal (at the time) AR15, with a 10 round magazine held in by the then standard "bullet button" legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines. Contrary to popular belief, possession of 30 round magazines was still legal in California until the first of this year, provided they were acquired before they were banned. The cop, however, arrested him for possession of a machine gun, and 2 high capacity magazines. Yes, I saw the arrest report, and it explicitly said "machine gun." Because of that wording, he was held without bail. They got a search warrant for his home, and confiscated his other completely legal firearms and ammunition. Once he finally got to see a judge, after THIRTY SIX DAYS in jail, the prosecution announced that they couldn't find any crime to charge him with, so they dropped the case. As a final slap in the face, they still made him spend one more day in jail, while they filed his release paperwork. Again, HE WAS NEVER FORMALLY CHARGED WITH ANYTHING.

    He was released to find that he now owed over $3,000 in impound fees for his car, he'd been fired from his job, and his ex wife had been granted sole custody of their children, because he now had a very serious arrest record. (with no charges filed) Between the car and his lawyer, he was already out about $10,000, and they still refuse to return about $8,000 worth of property, a year later. Including the lost wages for the month+ in jail, that arrest cost him well over $20,000, his job, and the 50% custody he had of his children. But because he was released, the system gets to pat themselves on the back, and claim "justice was served."

    So because of your friends problems we should let the blacks and Hispanics run rampant and kill us all?

    • Replies: @Ted Bell
    Show me where I wrote anything vaguely similar to that. Just like I said to the other imbecile above, put up or shut up. It's all right up there.^ Just copy and paste.

    I said a man had his life destroyed for a crime that didn't even exist. If you're in favor of that, then go to hell.
  85. @joe webb
    more. I quote your first missive. "After cutting the lock off, the cop found a legal (at the time) AR15, with a 10 round magazine held in by the then standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines. "

    Since the magazines were in the gun I 'assumed" that they were loaded, not unloaded. You did not state that they were unloaded. So were they loaded or not? (I just saw your later claim that the magazine was not loaded. Were there cartridges in the car?)

    Then, "standard “bullet button” legal workaround, and 2 additional empty 30 round magazines". what is a bullet button legal workaround? Is the AR-15 fully automatic or what? The civilian version of the military AR-15 is only semi-auto. IF he had the fully auto military version that would be illegal as far as I know. Or...what was the date of his arrest,and when were fully automatic weapons banned in California or elsewhere?

    Finally, are all 30 round magazines illegal now regardless of when they were purchased?

    I know the cops are often out of line. I have been hunted by the local sheriff's office for chasing courthouse gangsters 20 and then again, 8 years ago. In Mexico, I would have been dead long ago.

    But with the semi-universality of guns in this country, they have reason to be nervous...especially for guys who are ready to punch people out over mere words...like you.
    JW

    No, disingenuousness is not “pretty talk for a lie.” To be disingenuous is to make a fraudulent implication, as you clearly did. Some of us find the English language to be more useful when words have actual meanings. But since you have trouble with big words, and since you’ve now moved in to outright lying, then yes, I’m calling you a liar. And a pathetic one, at that. Everything I wrote is still up there for everyone to see. Even you. Yet you choose to make up your own fallacious details, and attribute them to me. You’re embarrassing yourself.

    On top of your pointless, accusatory arrogance, and your complete lack of reading comprehension, you’re also clearly demonstrating your stupidity. Laws don’t go in to effect before they’re passed. People in this country are NEVER released without charges if they’re found in possession of unregistered, fully automatic weapons. The AR15 is NOT a military weapon, nor is it fully automatic. (that would be either the M16, or the M4, some of which are fully automatic) And a bullet button is a device that locks the magazine in to the receiver, forcing the use of a tool to remove it, thereby making it meet California’s standard at the time for a fixed magazine, WHICH IS WHY THE MAGAZINE WAS IN THE F***ING GUN, YOU STUPID JACKASS. Don’t call me a liar for things YOU don’t understand.

    I could play this game too. Since you were being chased by some sheriff’s office, then I could say you’re obviously a dangerous, heavily armed murderer, and they should have shot you. You’ve already told us all that the only reason anyone is in jail is because them damned darkies are all murders. I guess that must mean you’re black, too, since you’re a murderer. But I’m not going to just make up random bullshit about you, because I’m not a lying prick like you. I have no idea why you found it necessary to make up your own details about a disastrously wrongful incarceration, just to imply that someone you’ve never met deserved to have his life destroyed. And I don’t care. You’re wrong, you’re lying, and you’re flailing desperately, in a pathetic attempt to justify your delusions of omniscience. Since you’re so certain the prosecutor failed in his duties, maybe you should focus your bullshit on him, and leave my COMPLETELY INNOCENT friend out of it.

    Yes, when you lie about what I’ve said, make up your own details about a situation you know nothing about, call me a liar, and accuse my deeply wronged friend of multiple felonies, you’re damned right I’d punch you. Once again, since you’re a blithering idiot, NO CHARGES WERE EVER FILED. THE PROSECUTOR WALKED IN TO COURT AND TOLD THE JUDGE THAT NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED. Yet they robbed him of tens of thousands of dollars, his job, 37 days of his life, AND HIS CHILDREN. Anyone who wants to tell me that the county should have done even more to destroy him, is fully deserving of a good beat down. Since you’ve abundantly demonstrated your complete lack of honor, I can see why that sentiment puzzles you. For those of us with functioning testicles, my position on this is perfectly respectable.

    You clearly have an unnatural fetish for Mexican laws, as you keep implying that people should be executed for violating them up here. Once again, for the hard of thinking:
    THIS ISN’T MEXICO.

    And feel free to show us all which countries have more people in prisons than the United States. Now, or at any time in the past. Since you’re accusing me of just spewing a “left-wing talking point”, which you dismiss as nonsense, it should be a trivial matter to point out which countries have more than 2,173,800 people in jail.

    https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/cpus15.txt

    Put up, or shut up, you lying bastard.

  86. @Alden
    So because of your friends problems we should let the blacks and Hispanics run rampant and kill us all?

    Show me where I wrote anything vaguely similar to that. Just like I said to the other imbecile above, put up or shut up. It’s all right up there.^ Just copy and paste.

    I said a man had his life destroyed for a crime that didn’t even exist. If you’re in favor of that, then go to hell.

  87. There are 3 sides to every story; his, hers and the truth. Old French saying.
    There are 3 sides to your friends story, his, the cops and the truth. I doubt you don’t know your friend as well as you think you do. Or perhaps you met him long after he was arrested.

    I don’t know what state the incident occurred. Plus there are innumerable city and county ordinances that apply to firearms, but those are misdemeanor ordinances.
    A few questions; why was your friend not granted bail the morning after he was arrested? He would have had a public defender for the bail hearing. If he was not in violation of gun laws why was he not granted bail.

    Did the police have a warrant to search his house? If so, a judge must have found probable cause.

    As far as losing custody of his kids while he was in jail for 36 days I question that as well. The wife would have had to contact an attorney and the attorney would have had to file a petition. That alone would take a few days. Court calendars are crowded. It would have been impossible to get a court date within 30 days not just in family court but in any civil court.
    If the wife did manage to get a court date while the husband was in jail, no judge would have taken away custody without either the husband or his attorney present.

    If the wife and her attorney showed up and neither the husband not his attorney were present the judge would have continued the case until the husband could be present.
    Plus the wife and her attorney would have had to prove to the judge that the husband was served with the petition to grant the wife sole custody.

    Speaking with her attorney, the attorney writing and filing the petition, serving the petition on the husband, getting a court date all would take at least a week. And the court date would be at least a month or 2 after the petition was filed.

    More and more, I believe there is a lot more to the story than what your friend told you.

    My point about the article is that Roberts probably didn’t write, research or fact check the article. It reads like all the pro black criminal anti police, anti victim garbage written for the last 60 years by the lines of Dershowitz, Gerry Spencer, Charles Garry, Angela Davis, Al Sharpton and the Jewish black criminal coalition.

    The truth is; when blacks and brown are in prison without parole, crime rates plummet and ordinary citizens are safe

    When liberals get their way, blacks and Browns run amuck with impunity and citizens are no longer safe.

  88. @joe webb
    I too have had a run-in with local cops and a legal gun. News to me that the law is as you state. I have always understood that the ammo and the gun be separated...like one in trunk and the other in glove box. I don't know how long that policy has been in effect but seems like forever.

    You friend was not smart to have a loaded weapon in his trunk..

    Anyhow, try this in Mexico and do not collect get out of jail card.. And maybe thousands of dollars in bribes , etc. Or anywhere else in
    the world.

    JW

    I don’t own a gun but I belong to the NRA. I joined not because I care about guns, but because until Trump was elected the NRA was the only organization that was successful against those minions of Satan, liberals. I occasionally skim through the magazine and newsletters of the NRA

    Gun owners are always blathering their opinions about gun + ammo laws. But they don’t seem to check their state, county and city laws and ordinances.

    If you’re going to own a gun, use the NRA knowledge about the laws in your locality. Lots of people keep guns in the trunk especially if they have kids. Most cops I have known kept it in the trunk if they had kids.
    Know the laws. Use the expertise of the NRA. Many police have little interest in guns. It’s just a tool, like a mechanics wrench. Once a year to qualify and that’s it. The average cop really doesn’t know the differences between various types of rifles and certainly not ammo.

    Point is, do not expect the cop who sees your gun to know what it is or if it is legal or not.

    But 37 days in jail with no bail hearing? No prima facie hearing? No prelim hearing?

  89. @Ted Bell
    And the difference between here and Mexico?

    MY FRIEND BROKE NO LAWS HERE. Yes, in Mexico, AR15s are illegal to own. Here in California, as of the time he was arrested for it, they were perfectly legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in Mexico, that will get you thrown in jail here, too, so your point is completely absurd. Different countries have different laws. And since Mexico has a far lower incarceration rate, your point is also infuriatingly disingenuous. The Land of the Free locks up more people than any society in history. You need to get your head out of the propaganda, and look at what's happening around you.

    Yes, Mexican police are known to occasionally lock up innocent people without charges, and blackmail them for bribes. But they don't steal half a year's pay from you, and take your kids away, while calling it "justice."

    I'm really trying to be civil, and understand your point of view. But your implication that my friend somehow got away with something would get you punched if you said it to my face. There was no "get out of jail card." He wasn't released on a technicality. He was released because the prosecutor came in to court and told the judge that he couldn't find a single thing to charge him with. Complete absence of a crime is not a loophole.

    I have to stop now. I've already written and erased too many things that would never get through moderation. If you're so convinced of the greatness of our justice system, feel free to explain it to a 5 year old boy who hasn't seen his daddy in 13 months, because some dirtbag judge doesn't like the laws he swore to uphold.

    The law in every state requires that every arrestee be brought to court for a bail bond hearing within 48 hours of the arrest except during the 3 day holidays

    So where was the prosecutor who said there was no crime at the bail bond hearing? Did your friend not have a bond hearing?

  90. @art guerrilla
    @ alden
    you must be a human-shaped pile of shit, i can always tell...
    *snort*

    You must be a black criminal with a long long felony record.

  91. @Ted Bell
    And the difference between here and Mexico?

    MY FRIEND BROKE NO LAWS HERE. Yes, in Mexico, AR15s are illegal to own. Here in California, as of the time he was arrested for it, they were perfectly legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in Mexico, that will get you thrown in jail here, too, so your point is completely absurd. Different countries have different laws. And since Mexico has a far lower incarceration rate, your point is also infuriatingly disingenuous. The Land of the Free locks up more people than any society in history. You need to get your head out of the propaganda, and look at what's happening around you.

    Yes, Mexican police are known to occasionally lock up innocent people without charges, and blackmail them for bribes. But they don't steal half a year's pay from you, and take your kids away, while calling it "justice."

    I'm really trying to be civil, and understand your point of view. But your implication that my friend somehow got away with something would get you punched if you said it to my face. There was no "get out of jail card." He wasn't released on a technicality. He was released because the prosecutor came in to court and told the judge that he couldn't find a single thing to charge him with. Complete absence of a crime is not a loophole.

    I have to stop now. I've already written and erased too many things that would never get through moderation. If you're so convinced of the greatness of our justice system, feel free to explain it to a 5 year old boy who hasn't seen his daddy in 13 months, because some dirtbag judge doesn't like the laws he swore to uphold.

    The criminal court judge who adjudicated the gun charge had absolutely nothing to do with the civil family court custody case.

  92. @enemy of earth
    Keeping criminals incarcerated is pointless. They should be allowed to work so they can provide restitution and their own sustenance. They should not subsist off the fruits of others' labor.

    The criminal would have to work a very well paid job to afford rent, food, transportation to work and restitution as well.

    Most street criminals don’t work anyway. The White collars earn good money from their criminal scams, but after they are caught they don’t have money for restitution.

    Restitution estimates are usually as criminal as the original crime. Every stolen car victim claims he had a complete $8,000 set of plumbers tools or 7 brand new laptops or whatever in the car.

    Take it from one who knows, restitution is almost never paid.

  93. @Ted Bell
    And the difference between here and Mexico?

    MY FRIEND BROKE NO LAWS HERE. Yes, in Mexico, AR15s are illegal to own. Here in California, as of the time he was arrested for it, they were perfectly legal. There are plenty of things that are perfectly legal in Mexico, that will get you thrown in jail here, too, so your point is completely absurd. Different countries have different laws. And since Mexico has a far lower incarceration rate, your point is also infuriatingly disingenuous. The Land of the Free locks up more people than any society in history. You need to get your head out of the propaganda, and look at what's happening around you.

    Yes, Mexican police are known to occasionally lock up innocent people without charges, and blackmail them for bribes. But they don't steal half a year's pay from you, and take your kids away, while calling it "justice."

    I'm really trying to be civil, and understand your point of view. But your implication that my friend somehow got away with something would get you punched if you said it to my face. There was no "get out of jail card." He wasn't released on a technicality. He was released because the prosecutor came in to court and told the judge that he couldn't find a single thing to charge him with. Complete absence of a crime is not a loophole.

    I have to stop now. I've already written and erased too many things that would never get through moderation. If you're so convinced of the greatness of our justice system, feel free to explain it to a 5 year old boy who hasn't seen his daddy in 13 months, because some dirtbag judge doesn't like the laws he swore to uphold.

    If you don’t mind my asking, what county was this? Marin? San Mateo? They are the only majority White, low crime counties I can think of in the entire state.

    I can see something like this happening in Marin where the crime rate is so low.

  94. For a long time I knew little about the American legal system and I wasn’t much interested, but when finally I decided to study it a little and I was really appalled. This is one a few things, among others, which drive me into the blues about America every time, those things which make me dislike America to the level of an absolute disgust (I must notice, though, I’ve always sympathized America more or less, but never was I “blinded by love” and I’m always open and eager to see every of its flaws). This article just resonates very much with the gloomiest of my thoughts. One of the best recently published articles.

    I just want to add that apart from numerous flaws which are too many to list, just very few obvious ones:

    1) unprecedentedly harsh punishments, required by law, including capital punishment;
    2) no upper limits for the terms of imprisonment and the accumulation of sentences;
    3) three-strike laws;

    make the American injustice system one of the most cruel, brutal and inhumane in the world. Only in America you could face 350 years for a possession of five “pornographic” images or got a life sentence for shoplifting a pair of socks or trousers. Only these three points show that everything is wrong with the legal system in America, there is even no need to mention the rest. The USA is a totalitarian police state where God save you from falling into the claws of the merciless legal system. No country in the world, apart from, maybe, some Third World God-forsaken countries in Africa or Asia, has such institutionalized injustice. But bearing in mind that America is not a Third World country, but supposedly the most democratic country in the world, this constitutes a global shame. I just wonder why people are still so eager to get into America, and why American citizens do not flee en mass from their beloved totalitarian fatherland. The former may not know anything better or are unaware, but the latter?

  95. “Three strike laws” was a concept forced through by none other than BC, and ninty percent of US judges and prosecutors are : Democrats.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member of forty-plus years, and pro jazz artist.

Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS