Is the US system really as kafkaesque as the article makes it sound? I.e. arbitrary decisions by individual officials can ruin peoples lives without a fair due process, and that the officials have a strong incentive not to be charitable?
and this is a success story. A man is free to walk after 414 days of jail because some enlightened new procedure that allows innocent people be set free before trial. Somehow reading all this I just cannot help but stare at the this number: 414. Before a trial [1].
Can this happen to anyone or do you have to enjoy a particular socio-economic situation to deserve this treatment?
[1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/murder-c...
E.g. you can get life in prison for 3 "strikes", even if it's for something like stealing cookies. You know, the thing Europe derided back in 19th century with Jean Valjean.
A 15 year old can be sentenced to death (and has).
A man that's later proven innocent can rot in jail for decades without much recourse.
The 5% of the world's population have 25% of the world's prisoners.
...
I sat on a jury once for a car thief. He totally did it, the police detective who testified was very thorough and professional, plus the accused did not dispute that he'd been caught driving the stolen car (he blamed someone else for the actual theft) but we listened to both sides and deliberated for a couple hours, considering everything. There was a lot of solid evidence, I am certain he did it even though I'm sceptical about what the police say (I have absolutely seen them lie under oath on multiple occasions). I am well aware of the concept of jury nullification.
We were a little confused why the guy didn't take a plea deal and went to trial but we took the job of jury seriously and after looking at the evidence we were comfortable saying he was guilty. The problem was that we had no idea this was the guy's 'third strike' and the judge mentioned this only a moment before sentencing him to life imprisonment. Several on the jury were clearly surprised by this and I think had we known it may have changed our verdict.
The defendant was a young man, and I am not convinced that sending him to prison for several decades for stealing a car (which was recovered undamaged) is of any benefit to society. Being on a jury means you are definitely not going to see the 'big picture' and when combined with mandatory minimum sentencing, this can be a problem.
Well, I want him alright. There are tons of examples of people who have done such things, including repeatedly, that include some great artists, writers, inventors, businessmen, etc. And of course tons of people who went to to change their ways, become great parents, etc.
We could lose some people thinking like your statement above from society, though.
Sure, but we'd probably be better off finding something better than jail as well.
Actually, I'd rather we get rid of the cars...
Besides, cars kill far more people than car thieves (actually, they are the leading cause of death in young people), pollute the air, have a big environmental impact for their construction (including electric cars), contribute to urban noise pollution, and influence city planning in creating monstrous (sub)urban sprawls. And that's before the billions spent on oil for car use, and the millions killed to ensure first world countries control it and get it for cheap.
> And what's even more crazy is he stole a car, knowing that it would be his third strike
At this point one should stop for a moment and ponder why that might be, and not be satisfied until you have an answer.
When society is so broken that someone is willing to risk life in prison over a theft, then to me the problem is the society that left him without better alternatives first and foremost, not the thief.
I had my car stolen a few years before I got seated on that jury and while it was unpleasant, I got my car back a couple weeks later in perfect condition. The most annoying thing was that the police had it towed to an impound lot and didn't tell me for several days, and I had to pay for the tow and daily impound fees! I explained this during the jury polling and was really surprised to still be seated.
It was a different police force handling my stolen car and I remember thinking that they were total clowns compared to the ones I saw years later as a juror.
"Felony" is a legal term -- and the "seriousness" is related to the laws passed and the culture around them. Heck, it might not even reflect society's opinion of the offense.
Back in the day stealing a car for a ride (equally a "felony" as stealing it permanently) was something "delinquent youth" did routinely, without much harm to anyone -- the practice, common in many countries, is called a "joyride" (nowadays electronic locks make it more difficult -- it was much more prevalent back in the day).
Apart from that the joyriders are usually doing it so they can drive dangerously, which can and does result in people getting killed or seriously injured. And the thousands of pounds of property damage.
Not that it deserves a life sentence, but delinquency shouldn't be an excuse but a reason for intervention.
Presumably that is why the jury is not told. If the jury's job is to determine, as fairly and impartially as possible, whether someone committed a crime of which they have been accused, then it makes sense to hide other information that does not affect that fact but could cause emotional rather than logical and evidence-based deliberation.
The problem here doesn't seem to be hiding the full situation from you and your colleagues on the jury. The problem seems to be that having fulfilled your purpose in the proceedings by making the determination you were asked to make, and the judge was then denied the ability to fulfill their purpose in the proceedings properly because their hands were tied by the Three Strikes rule and so the punishment arguably did not fit the crime.
Of course, whether the way the jury is kept in the dark in such a case stands up to ethical scrutiny in light of principles like jury nullification is a different question.