Hacker News Reader

Comment by generalizations | Hacker News Reader

The risk is of a judicial system without checks and balances.

When most people can't afford to go to trial (both financially, and because they'd be insane to not take a plea), the checks and balances of the judiciary are, in practice, only available to a privileged few.

When you piss off a cop, get arrested, and are released a few days later, without any charges, you also have exactly zero recourse through those checks and balances.

When you piss off a cop, and he brutalizes you, you may get some recourse (through a lawsuit, unlikely as your case may be), but it does not serve as a deterrent to subsequent police misbehaviour. (As we have seen over the past summer.)

People sue for unlawful arrest and bad police behavior and win all the time. Check out this YouTube channel dedicated to covering just that... https://youtube.com/c/AuditTheAudit

Are there a lot of minimum wage, single parent type people that do that?

As an upper-middle-class office worker with flexible hours and cash to spare, even pursuing a small-claims case was a major PITA for me. Took a ton of time, effort, and money.

The bar that needs to be met for proving that you were subjected to an 'unlawful arrest' is so incredibly high, it's farcical. Ten times out of ten, you're better off moving on with your life, and forgetting it ever happened.

Which existed even when cops were the ones making the arrests.

No one would claim that the existing system is perfect, but there is a great deal of difference between the assessment of a physician or magistrate and trial by a jury of one's peers. A jury of twelve is standard; I know of no requirement that twelve physicians deem someone a threat to himself or others. Furthermore, there are stronger protections for habeas corpus than there are for people involuntarily committed. Those who are accused are guaranteed a lawyer; those who are committed have no right to an advocate, which is doubly bad considering that they are often drugged in ways that dull their mental faculties.

The great majority of cases don't go to trial. Instead people are threatened with punishments vastly disproportionate to their purported crimes, and thereby intimidated in to pleading guilty irrespective of their guilt. Defendants without the financial/social resources to mount a solid defense don’t want to take their chances when faced with a 20 year prison term or whatever, not to mention a slow process that leaves their life in limbo for months or years even if they do eventually prevail. A NYT story a few years ago claimed 97% of federal cases and 94% of state cases end via plea bargain.

For those who do go to trial, the right to a lawyer is often pretty weak support. Public defenders are grossly underfunded and overworked, and there is no guarantee that they will be competent or committed to the case.

Going to add to this.

A jury of ones 'peers' is rarely the case either. Yes, they are citizens, but they are rarely of the same background, ethnicity, or social status. They are hand selected by lawyers to remove people that might be sympathetic to your plight.

I've never heard that jurors are the best and brightest among us. Often the highly educated and analytical are removed from jury pool.

I'm not sure this point is relevant unless you're implying that because the system is imperfect we should introduce more systems in place that can be just as easily imperfect in the same ways.

The point is that we aren't introducing a new system at all. The system of people being involuntarily committed without a trial already exists.

Nonsense. Since nothing can be perfect then we shall never change anything. Makes sense?

The point though is that change is useless unless it’s change in a good direction. If something is going to be changed, it should be shown to be better in some way.

An article I read recently noted that there were zero arrests in 6 months of health care professionals replacing police officers.

That's exactly what a jail is.

Police suspects you have committed a crime, holds you in jail until trial or until you pay bail and may never end up releasing you even if you are innocent.

What’s the difference between a jail and a psych ward again? When I was in one it was functionally indistinguishable from a jail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com