|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 07 2015 13:03 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:On March 07 2015 12:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source This is actually interesting. I had a friend who owed my local county court a semi-large amount of fines for stuff that he did breaking the law. While in court he told the judge he didn't think he would be able to pay the full amount by the deadline and asked if there was some sort of payment option or if he could push the deadline back further or anything else he could do. The judge told him he could spend time in jail to offset some (or all) of the fine depending on how long he went. Apparently the county made money off of him being incarcerated so he ended up asking the judge (who gave him the idea and complied) to send him to jail so he wouldn't have to pay the fine. In his case, it was better for him to go to jail because he could not afford the amount of money. I'm curious if at least some of the cases in Ferguson are somewhat similar. Some local governments around the country are actually billing you for time you spend in prison as well as legal fees, trial fees, and anything else they can saddle you with. It's a nasty situation and pretty horrifying, especially since so few affected individuals have the resources or understanding to effectively appeal the situation. never heard of them charging for prison time. example? legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example? trial fees / court costs is standard. at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause. the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law.
It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt.
|
On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 07 2015 13:03 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
[quote]
This is actually interesting. I had a friend who owed my local county court a semi-large amount of fines for stuff that he did breaking the law. While in court he told the judge he didn't think he would be able to pay the full amount by the deadline and asked if there was some sort of payment option or if he could push the deadline back further or anything else he could do. The judge told him he could spend time in jail to offset some (or all) of the fine depending on how long he went. Apparently the county made money off of him being incarcerated so he ended up asking the judge (who gave him the idea and complied) to send him to jail so he wouldn't have to pay the fine. In his case, it was better for him to go to jail because he could not afford the amount of money. I'm curious if at least some of the cases in Ferguson are somewhat similar. Some local governments around the country are actually billing you for time you spend in prison as well as legal fees, trial fees, and anything else they can saddle you with. It's a nasty situation and pretty horrifying, especially since so few affected individuals have the resources or understanding to effectively appeal the situation. never heard of them charging for prison time. example? legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example? trial fees / court costs is standard. at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause. the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt.
if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay.
not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
stop changing your tune. you clearly went on a crusade against criminals while not recognizing the neutral tone of the word you later adopted after getting called out on it.
|
On March 08 2015 13:33 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 11:43 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:On March 07 2015 13:03 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:On March 07 2015 12:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) -
Holder also said President Barack Obama's task force on policing will issue guidelines to address jailing citizens who owe money to the city, a practice used in Ferguson. But he noted that the federal government does not have the authority to demand such a change of local governments. Source This is actually interesting. I had a friend who owed my local county court a semi-large amount of fines for stuff that he did breaking the law. While in court he told the judge he didn't think he would be able to pay the full amount by the deadline and asked if there was some sort of payment option or if he could push the deadline back further or anything else he could do. The judge told him he could spend time in jail to offset some (or all) of the fine depending on how long he went. Apparently the county made money off of him being incarcerated so he ended up asking the judge (who gave him the idea and complied) to send him to jail so he wouldn't have to pay the fine. In his case, it was better for him to go to jail because he could not afford the amount of money. I'm curious if at least some of the cases in Ferguson are somewhat similar. Some local governments around the country are actually billing you for time you spend in prison as well as legal fees, trial fees, and anything else they can saddle you with. It's a nasty situation and pretty horrifying, especially since so few affected individuals have the resources or understanding to effectively appeal the situation. never heard of them charging for prison time. example? legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example? trial fees / court costs is standard. at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. If you look in the Michigan cases here (from the ACLU so it's obviously extreme cases) you can see a woman who was charged a booking and pay-to-stay fee for the jail while awaiting sentencing. It's standard to assess fees and reasonable in the vast amount of cases. But it's asinine for the state to assess fees and throw people in jail when they fail to pay when they know the people would fail to pay ahead of time. It doesn't save the justice system any money at all. How does the state benefit from spending $700 jailing a homeless man for failure to pay a $400 fine?I mean, if they can't pay, you need to either give them another option or have them serve the jailtime in the first place, it's a waste of your time and money to do anything else. It's easy when the state makes $1,500 through taxes and federal stuff for jailing that person. That was the whole point of the story of what happened with my friend. The county jail made more than it took to jail him through state/federal stuff.
In that case it's something else somewhere that's fucked up, because jails are not profitable. So where is that money coming from?
|
On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Some local governments around the country are actually billing you for time you spend in prison as well as legal fees, trial fees, and anything else they can saddle you with. It's a nasty situation and pretty horrifying, especially since so few affected individuals have the resources or understanding to effectively appeal the situation. never heard of them charging for prison time. example? legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example? trial fees / court costs is standard. at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause. the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care.
You've never broken any law?
|
JERUSALEM (AP) — Before a major anti-Netanayhu rally today in Tel Aviv, former chief of Israel's Mossad spy agency on Friday rejected claims made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his contentious address to Congress about Iran's nuclear program. Dagan served as Mossad chief until January 1st, 2011.
In an interview aired on Channel 2 TV, Meir Dagan denied Netanyahu's claim that the deal under negotiation with world powers would allow Iran to create a nuclear weapon within a year or less.
"The time is longer than what he describes," Dagan said.
Dagan also rejected Netanyahu's assertion that Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program could allow it to deliver a nuclear arsenal to "every part of the United States."
"The missiles cannot reach the U.S.," Dagan said. When asked if Netanyahu does not know that, Dagan replied: "He knows. So what?"
Channel 2 showed Dagan making the comments as he watched Netanyahu's televised speech to Congress.
When Netanyahu said that "the Jewish people can defend ourselves," Dagan said: "That is a threat of attack."
Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz, of Netanyahu's Likud Party, told Channel 2 that he rejected many of Dagan'sassertions.
Source
|
Officials responsible for making sure Florida is prepared to respond to the earth's changing climate are barred from using the terms "global warming" and "climate change" in official communications, emails and reports, according to new findings from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
"We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact," said Kristina Trotta, a former Florida Department of Environmental Protection employee.
Another former employee added, "We were dealing with the effects and economic impact of climate change, and yet we can't reference it."
Climate change is a major problem for Florida. Last year, the National Climate Assessment named Miami as one of the cities in the United States most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. A Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact paper has also warned that water in the area could rise by as much as 2 feet by the year 2060.
But the state's governor, Republican Rick Scott, has frustrated scientists by downplaying the problem.
Last year, a reporter asked Scott whether man-made climate change "is significantly affecting the weather, the climate." Scott tried to change the subject and replied, "Well, I'm not a scientist."
When asked by the Tampa Bay Times in 2010 whether he believed in climate change, Scott simply replied, "No."
In August, five climate scientists met with Scott and told him he needs to do more to protect the state from rising sea levels.
According to the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, the policy against mentioning global warming went into effect after Scott took office in 2011 and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr. as the agency's director.
Christopher Byrd, a counsel with the state Department of Environmental Protection, said he first heard about the policy at a staff meeting in 2011.
Source
|
On March 08 2015 22:34 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
never heard of them charging for prison time. example?
legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example?
trial fees / court costs is standard.
at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause. the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care. You've never broken any law?
break it on a daily basis. and when i get caught, i pay. fail to see the relevance.
|
On March 09 2015 04:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Officials responsible for making sure Florida is prepared to respond to the earth's changing climate are barred from using the terms "global warming" and "climate change" in official communications, emails and reports, according to new findings from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
"We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact," said Kristina Trotta, a former Florida Department of Environmental Protection employee.
Another former employee added, "We were dealing with the effects and economic impact of climate change, and yet we can't reference it."
Climate change is a major problem for Florida. Last year, the National Climate Assessment named Miami as one of the cities in the United States most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. A Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact paper has also warned that water in the area could rise by as much as 2 feet by the year 2060.
But the state's governor, Republican Rick Scott, has frustrated scientists by downplaying the problem.
Last year, a reporter asked Scott whether man-made climate change "is significantly affecting the weather, the climate." Scott tried to change the subject and replied, "Well, I'm not a scientist."
When asked by the Tampa Bay Times in 2010 whether he believed in climate change, Scott simply replied, "No."
In August, five climate scientists met with Scott and told him he needs to do more to protect the state from rising sea levels.
According to the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, the policy against mentioning global warming went into effect after Scott took office in 2011 and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr. as the agency's director.
Christopher Byrd, a counsel with the state Department of Environmental Protection, said he first heard about the policy at a staff meeting in 2011. Source
I just wanne link Wierd Al's 'Dare to be Stupid' but sadly these are the people leading significant portions of the US.
|
On March 09 2015 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 22:34 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause.
the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care. You've never broken any law? break it on a daily basis. and when i get caught, i pay. fail to see the relevance.
I think we all know that the truth of a situation isn't what is decided in the courtroom. What's decided is who has a more convincing story that is reasonably supported by the "facts" (which often boils down to he said, she said between a suspect and an officer)
So if you are dealing with a prejudiced police, and a prejudiced courtroom, and the "facts" are not favorable, often it makes more sense to plead, rather than pay your lawyer extra to go to trial where the prosecution will tell a story that may or may not reflect reality and the jury may or may not rule in favor of what actually transpired.
You would think that if one was innocent they would never plead, but that simply isn't reality. Common criminals never get the option corporations do though to just pay a fine and refuse to admit guilt. There are probably still people right now on death row because they didn't plead to a murder they didn't commit. Obviously being innocent and not pleading isn't always enough to keep you out of prison. A reality not lost on people who do plead.
|
On March 09 2015 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2015 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 22:34 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care. You've never broken any law? break it on a daily basis. and when i get caught, i pay. fail to see the relevance. There are probably still people right now on death row because they didn't plead to a murder they didn't commit.
Of course there are. dAPhREAk just fails to see the relevance (To himself) nor does he really care. They are probably just poor assholes anyway.
|
On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 08:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
Some local governments around the country are actually billing you for time you spend in prison as well as legal fees, trial fees, and anything else they can saddle you with. It's a nasty situation and pretty horrifying, especially since so few affected individuals have the resources or understanding to effectively appeal the situation. never heard of them charging for prison time. example? legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example? trial fees / court costs is standard. at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause. the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care.
Isn't the whole point of an Alford plea pleading guilty while claiming innocent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
|
On March 09 2015 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 22:34 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause.
the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care. You've never broken any law? break it on a daily basis. and when i get caught, i pay. fail to see the relevance.
You have a criminal record?
|
On March 09 2015 05:35 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 09:48 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 08:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
never heard of them charging for prison time. example?
legal fees? i assume you mean public defender fees, which is standard based on formulas designed to determine how much they can afford. if you are referring to prosecutor fees, example?
trial fees / court costs is standard.
at the end of the day though, taxes are paying for all of this. so, you are saying that its improper for the individual who caused the situation to pay more for wasted money they caused when the alternative is taking money from other civic programs (e.g., schools, roads, politicians' hush funds) to pay for it. You are using causation in a very particular sense here. "Participation" is the more apt word. That it takes away from the force of your conclusion is the sad reality. To say that the poor man who was stopped and frisked "caused" the court costs is to ignore the selection process, starts at least back at the policeman who, in his nearly boundless discretion, decided to stop the poor man. To talk about "causes" we probably should go all the way back to the man's birth, which he did not cause. the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care. Isn't the whole point of an Alford plea pleading guilty while claiming innocent? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea
not familiar with them, but it appears so. it also appears that the person would be found guilty if they went to trial. looking only at that wiki article.
|
On March 09 2015 05:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2015 04:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 22:34 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 20:27 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 15:22 IgnE wrote:On March 08 2015 14:41 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:36 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 14:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 08 2015 14:04 Mercy13 wrote:On March 08 2015 13:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
the fuck? if he is found guilty, it means he committed a crime, and the criminal case would not have been required unless he committed the crime. i doubt innocent people are asked to pay court costs, prison time, etc. Haha you're cute : ) You should do some reading on the US criminal justice system. not as cute as you for telling an american lawyer who practiced criminal law in San Francisco that he needs to do reading on the US criminal justice system. chu. I'm an American lawyer who has practiced criminal law as well, and innocent people pay fines/go to jail all the time. There's no possible way you can be an attorney and not be aware of that... I've personally represented innocent clients who plead guilty to get a fine, to avoid months in jail if they lose a trial. It happens all the time. Christ just read the Ferguson report. let me restate so you dont miss the point. people who are convicted of crimes or the equivalent (people pleading out) pay court costs, etc. people who are found not guilty of a crime do not pay court costs, etc. if you plead out, you are guilty, not "innocent," under the law. It's even weirder to me that you would persist in saying that innocent people who plead guilty to avoid the worse consequences of fighting the charges "caused" their [legal] guilt. if someone pleads out, they are saying they are guilty; it is their choice. why they chose to do that is their business (the law doesn't look beyond making sure they know the consequences of their actions of pleading). you don't get to plead out and then claim innocence. regardless, this is far beyond the point. when you plead out, you generally have a good sense of what the punishment will be, including costs you will have to pay. not sure why this is weird to you, nor do i really care. You've never broken any law? break it on a daily basis. and when i get caught, i pay. fail to see the relevance. I think we all know that the truth of a situation isn't what is decided in the courtroom. What's decided is who has a more convincing story that is reasonably supported by the "facts" (which often boils down to he said, she said between a suspect and an officer) So if you are dealing with a prejudiced police, and a prejudiced courtroom, and the "facts" are not favorable, often it makes more sense to plead, rather than pay your lawyer extra to go to trial where the prosecution will tell a story that may or may not reflect reality and the jury may or may not rule in favor of what actually transpired. You would think that if one was innocent they would never plead, but that simply isn't reality. Common criminals never get the option corporations do though to just pay a fine and refuse to admit guilt. There are probably still people right now on death row because they didn't plead to a murder they didn't commit. Obviously being innocent and not pleading isn't always enough to keep you out of prison. A reality not lost on people who do plead.
and? are you saying people who plead shouldnt be held to the plea agreement, which normally requires them to pay costs.
|
The issue is that forcing criminal defendants to pay costs puts perverse incentives into the system that favor abuse.
|
On March 09 2015 06:36 zlefin wrote:
The issue is that forcing criminal defendants to pay costs puts perverse incentives into the system that favor abuse.
i think this is a fair point for traffic infractions because it requires relatively little time investment for the court, and most defendants will pay without going to court because its a hassle, cheaper, etc. however, when you are talking about misdos and felonies, there can be extensive time that is used up by the court and its staff for discovery, pretrial, and trial. someone should pay for that and it shouldn't be the tax payers.
like i said, at the end of the day, either the taxpayers or the convicted/pled out defendant is going to pay this. i think it should be the defendant. the fact that some "innocent" people are convicted or plead out does not change anything in my mind.
|
On March 09 2015 08:15 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2015 06:36 zlefin wrote:
The issue is that forcing criminal defendants to pay costs puts perverse incentives into the system that favor abuse. i think this is a fair point for traffic infractions because it requires relatively little time investment for the court, and most defendants will pay without going to court because its a hassle, cheaper, etc. however, when you are talking about misdos and felonies, there can be extensive time that is used up by the court and its staff for discovery, pretrial, and trial. someone should pay for that and it shouldn't be the tax payers. like i said, at the end of the day, either the taxpayers or the convicted/pled out defendant is going to pay this. i think it should be the defendant. the fact that some "innocent" people are convicted or plead out does not change anything in my mind.
While I agree that the convicted person should be paying for that stuff, I think there's probably something inherently wrong with the system when it's just easier to plead out guilty when you're innocent for whatever circumstances. If you're innocent it should always be the better option to fight the charge than just accepting a guilty conviction.
|
On March 09 2015 08:20 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2015 08:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2015 06:36 zlefin wrote:
The issue is that forcing criminal defendants to pay costs puts perverse incentives into the system that favor abuse. i think this is a fair point for traffic infractions because it requires relatively little time investment for the court, and most defendants will pay without going to court because its a hassle, cheaper, etc. however, when you are talking about misdos and felonies, there can be extensive time that is used up by the court and its staff for discovery, pretrial, and trial. someone should pay for that and it shouldn't be the tax payers. like i said, at the end of the day, either the taxpayers or the convicted/pled out defendant is going to pay this. i think it should be the defendant. the fact that some "innocent" people are convicted or plead out does not change anything in my mind. While I agree that the convicted person should be paying for that stuff, I think there's probably something inherently wrong with the system when it's just easier to plead out guilty when you're innocent for whatever circumstances. If you're innocent it should always be the better option to fight the charge than just accepting a guilty conviction.
part of the reason why i feel the criminal justice system is inequitable. i once sat on a jury and was asked if i felt the system was fair, and i told them no because rich people always get a better defense. i was criticized by the judge for saying that in front of prospective jurors, but its true. you will never get as good a defense with a public defender as you would with unlimited funds and a private attorney.
as for "innocent," its not always such a black and white issue. if the person was clearly not guilty, there are ways to get teh case dismissed. judges tend to be prosecutor biased though so not always effective ways.
|
That's probably true about rich people, but i gotta say, when i got arrested, my public defender went above and beyond for me and did some amazing work for me. He was still somewhat young so i guess he just hadn't become disillusioned yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
