Saturday, May 21, 2005

Twenty Incontrovertible Truths About the American Criminal Justice System, From Someone Who Knows and Has No Interest in Lying to You About It


A Criminal Defense Attorney Tells All About the Most Misunderstood Institution in the Whole of America

1. Most criminal defendants are indeed guilty of something; due to rampant overcharging, however, many of them are not guilty of the exact crime they're being charged with. Frequently they are guilty of a less serious offense.

2. Most criminal defendants will not be incarcerated for their crimes, not because the system lacks the resources to do so, but because their offenses are insufficiently serious to warrant them being locked in a cage for any period of time.

3. Most criminal defendants who are incarcerated for their crimes will return to their communities within a matter of days or, at most, weeks.

4. Most crimes are credibly and even directly caused by one of the following circumstances: drug addiction, alcohol addiction, mental illness, homelessness, lack of education, and lack of proper parenting during childhood. On the list of factors motivating the average crime, "evil" is perhaps 127th. Police officers, defense attorneys, judges, and prosecutors all know and accept this, except when they're on television or hawking a "tell-all" book, in which case they lie to make money and enhance their career options.

5. Most police officers do not hate defense attorneys. Likewise, most prosecutors do not hate defense attorneys. Like judges, police officers and prosecutors understand that defense attorneys are an ineluctable part of the criminal justice system, and the American system of democracy would fall apart tomorrow without them. Many police officers and prosecutors even admire defense attorneys for the difficulty of the work they do, and regret inadequate understanding of the importance of that work amongst the general public. The television show Law & Order has done more to knowingly lie to the American people about defense attorneys and what they do, and about the criminal justice system and how it actually operates, than any show in the history of American television. Law & Order accurately depicts the criminal justice system in the same way Hitler actually depicts the sensibilities of the average Berlin resident in 2005.

6. Judges, in criminal cases, act almost universally in a fashion one would describe as "conservative." Reports of liberal judges "letting people off" because of rampant liberalism amongst the federal and state judiciary are grievously false, and don't, if one takes even a moment to think about it, make any sense at all, anyway. Most judges will not risk political fallout, and/or the destruction of their own professional careers, for the sake of protecting a defendant's rights--if and when there's an arguable case that they could still be considered to have "followed the law" (or even merely satisfied basic public policy concerns) by not protecting those rights. When a judge issues a "liberal" ruling, it means he is (often against his instincts) following the Constitution and/or a state statute. When he issues a "conservative" ruling, he may well be following the Constitution and/or a state statute, but it is just as likely that the decision is a thinly-veiled outcome-based election of pragmatism and public policy over settled constitutional and statutory law.

7. The nation's founding document, The Constitution, is a radical and eminently progressive document. To "follow the Constitution" in a given case is, almost always, to favor civil liberties over public policy concerns--"public policy concerns" being a bland euphemism for always favoring big government in the prosecution of individual American citizens.

8. More than 90% of criminal defendants "take responsibility for their actions" and plead guilty. Trials are rare. Well over 50% of trials arise because the government has made an unreasonably punitive plea offer to the defendant, and the defendant decides, therefore, to proceed to trial by jury in hopes of either an acquittal or simply a more reasonable sentence.

9. Prosecutors do not, as the nation has been consistently misinformed by the Law & Order series, represent the "people," or "the community," or "the citizenry." Prosecutors have one boss, and one boss only: the government (state or federal). As for the rest of the criminal justice system, it breaks down as follows: defense attorneys represent individual citizens; judges, like prosecutors, represent the government (albeit a different branch than prosecutors) as well as the impartial face of the law; and police officers represent the letter of the law, whether that law is favored by, or beneficial to, the community it acts upon or not. The only place the "people" are represented in the criminal justice system is in the institution of the jury.

10. Generally speaking, prosecutors are apt to favor trial-by-judge, and defense attorneys are apt to favor trial-by-jury. Defense attorneys prefer juries because most American juries do not view criminal cases the way prosecutors do, when they are--often for the first time in their lives--presented with the reality of what a criminal case actually looks and sounds like.

11. Generally speaking, the more serious the crime, the lower the recidivism rate.

12. Violent crimes are rare. Stranger-on-stranger violent crimes are obscenely rare. Most violent crimes occur between persons who know one another. Most crimes, generally, are either "property" or "drug-related" crimes. Most "property" crimes should actually be considered "drug-related" crimes, too, as the number one reason Americans steal from, burglarize, or rob other Americans is to get money for drugs.

13. "Getting rich" is the 127th most likely motivation for stealing from, burglarizing, or robbing another American. Nobody gets rich off property crimes, except a) in the movies, b) amongst the white-collar set, or c) in the rare instance of a serial bank robber, the sort of "career criminal" (a criminal whose primary source of income is crime) so blessedly rare in America he's become the only sort of criminal Hollywood has cared to write about for the last seventy-five years (cf. The Godfather, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, et. al.). Crack addicts make for bad cinema.

14. Defense attorneys want to see the crime rate reduced as much as everyone else does. Defense attorneys do not defend accused criminals because they enjoy, admire, wish to encourage, or appreciate high crime rates--or criminals. Most do so, instead, because they believe the adversarial system of justice is the best truth-seeking mechanism ever created by human beings. And also, because they see defending the despised and/or down-trodden--one of the least popular forms of employment in the United States, despite our self-reporting as a charitable Christian nation--as a form of public service. Public defenders, particularly, often become public defenders for the same reason police officers become police officers: to serve their communities in a manner most political pundits and other assorted "talking heads" would never consider doing in their lifetimes, either because it's too dangerous, too difficult, too depressing, or (over all else) too poorly compensated.

15. To say that most criminals are Democrats is to say that most trees would choose to be pines if they but had the choice. The fact is, criminals are, as a class, shockingly apolitical, don't vote, and don't know shit about politics even when they do vote. Not surprisingly, most criminals are poorly educated. Everyone knows that better public education is the best way to reduce crime rates, which is precisely why those politicians who make a living on banal, ineffective "tough-on-crime" bullshit are adamantly opposed to doing anything to improve public education.

16. Most criminals are white.

17. Most criminals are men, though women are less frequently charged with crimes than their actual rate of criminal activity would suggest should be the case. Men will often get arrested for behavior a police officer would not arrest a woman for.

18. Most police officers are honest and do the best job they possibly can. Typically, it is the court system--lawyers on both sides, and on the bench--which does a poor job of instructing police officers in how best to follow the Constitution on the beat. Of course, it is also true that being a police officer can be a stunningly difficult job: many times police officers make mistakes simply because they have been called upon to make good decisions under the worst of all possible conditions.

19. Drug addicts are immune to deterrence theory, as are most serious violent criminals, such as rapists and murderers, and those who (a larger group than you might think) commit their crimes because of a lack of education or persistent poverty. Those who believe stiff sentences alone will reduce crime are morons who have never been within two hundred yards of an American courthouse. Those who believe that local jails--where the vast majority of incarcerated defendants are warehoused--and state/federal prisons should do more to brutalize inmates are favoring a course of action which makes Americans markedly less safe. A brutalized inmate is more likely to re-engage in sociopathic behavior upon his or her release from incarceration (cf. Truth #3, above: "Most criminal defendants who are incarcerated for their crimes will return to their communities within a matter of days or, at most, weeks").

20. If wealthy communities were policed in the same manner poor communities are presently policed--that is, if the criminal code, at both the arrest and prosecution stages, was applied equally against the wealthy as against the poor in this country--50% of criminal statutes nationwide would be appealed, repealed, or dramatically amended within a year's time.

12 comments:

Seth Abramson said...

To the French pornographer who lately utilized this site, specifically the "comments" section of this post, as a depository for his "work": I applaud your ingenuity and resourcefulness, sir.

I take it, however, that none of my readers--of which, incidentally, there are virtually none--are here to see enormous breasts and well-executed head-shots of women in mid-orgasm.

Of which, incidentally, there also are none here, and almost certainly never will be.

No affront to either breasts or orgasms intended.

--KRIS said...

"Defense attorneys prefer juries because most American juries do not view criminal cases the way prosecutors do, when they are--often for the first time in their lives--presented with the reality of what a criminal case actually looks and sounds like." Let's not forget that the possibility of nullification of the law -- technically illegal and therefore, unlikely for a judge, although I have seen one do it -- rests with juries.

Seth Abramson said...

Excellent point, Kris.

One beauty of a jury (as opposed to a judge) is that jurors can, at times, accede more to their own ideals of "justice" (however broadly defined) than to the (narrowly-delineated) "realities" of the law. The downside, of course, is that jurors poorly informed by the likes of Grace, Murphy, Pirro, Malkin, O'Reilly, and Hannity may well harbor a perverse sense of "justice" more firmly rooted in Hollywood than the truths they see daily in their own lives. Thus, while nullification--rare as it is--is a godsend to the aims of justice from time to time, the counter-legal impulses which lead to such nullification can often cut decidedly against what most public defenders (and even most average Americans) would deem just.

Having said that, one vigilante juror can only (unless terrifically persuasive) bring about a hung jury, not a conviction, so the damage done there is not irretrievable, at least.

Seth

The Nappyheaded Pensieve said...

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Thank you for sharing :)

vacarter said...

I always wondered why someone would want to be a criminal defense attorney. Lately someone in my family was implicated in a conspiracy by 2 girls who had a grudge. After this I have a great deal of admiration for what defense attorney's do to try and protect the rights of their clients. My eyes have been opened as to what really goes on and I am horrified. As we were told "It is not about truth, it is not about justice--it is about convictions." A brave soul who testified and refuted the false testimony of the "girls" was charged with Obstruction of Justice after my family member was found guilty. Haven't seen that on Law and Order.

Seth Abramson said...

V.A.C.,

You make an important point.

You've probably heard this largely-meaningless tripe from the political right-of-center: a conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged.

More common, I think, than a mugging is having someone you know in some way be involved with the criminal justice system, or with law enforcement.

That'll open one's eyes right quick.

Whether it immediately makes one a progressive or not, I can't say--but it doesn't hurt.

Neo-con big-government garbage seems just a little bit more threatening when you realize big government is about as able to police itself as banana-republic-government.

Seth

PhiladelphiaLawyer said...

Since you aren't configured for trackbacks, see here.

Silas Marner said...

1. The structure of these comments comes pretty directly from a similar list at the beginning of a book by Alan Dershowitz, and the content was influenced by that list. Not that I'm complaining or suggesting plagiarism (I'm really not!), but simply making a remark in the spirit of literary criticism. The people who find this list interesting will find that one interesting also.
2. To the anonymous Frenchman: Pornographic photographs of women annoy me, because I find women to be the loveliest and most wonderful creatures on earth. I'm sure that your photos can't compare with what --- looks like when she's having an orgasm, or even when she's not, and she's really nothing special.
3. As Dershowitz there says, one of the hardest things for a layman (to be said in a tone of contempt) to understand is why a lawyer should defend someone whom he feels guilty of a terrible crime. Our blogger seems to address the same question. I recently saw a well-phrased answer in a murder mystery: To test the prosecution's case. Even if the defense lawyer believes that the defendent is guilty, he shouldn't be convicted unless one can convince a judge or jury that he's guilty according to the law.

Seth Abramson said...

Hi Cassandra,

Blogging from Ohio here.

I can tell you, I studied under Dershowitz.

In fact, Dersh gave me an A+ in Criminal Law at Harvard.

That said, that was years ago, I haven't read his list in maybe seven years, my list wasn't influenced by his, much of the content is different, if not all of it (and I'm only taking your word for it that it's not all of it; I have his book "The Best Defense" at home but have skimmed it only once since law school), and frankly I have always viewed Dershowitz as an appellate attorney who's long since forgotten what it was like to be a trial attorney.

Most of his views on the system emanate from the rarified air of HLS academia, and from a man whose legal "practice" now consists of cherry-picked, appellate-argument-only litigation.

In short, I don't and wouldn't draw from him for inspiration, sorry.

Seth

Silas Marner said...

Some parallels in content:

Abramson: "1. Most criminal defendants are indeed guilty of something...; however, many of them are not guilty of the exact crime they're being charged with."
Dershowitz: "Rule I: Almost all criminal defendents are, in fact, guilty."

Abramson: "18. Most police officers are honest and do the best job they possibly can."
Dershowitz: "Rule XI: Most judges and prosecutors would not knowingly convict a defendent who (sic) they believe to be innocent of the crime charged, (or a closely related crime)."

Some parallels in structure, aside from the basic idea of the numbered list explaining how the criminal law system works:

Abramson:
"1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
....
19. .... cf. Truth #3, above:..."

Dershowitz:
"Rule I: ...
Rule II: All criminal defense lawyers, ... understand and believe Rule I.
....
Rule V: All prosecutors... are aware of Rule IV.
Rule VII: All judges are aware of Rule VI."

"and frankly I have always viewed Dershowitz as an appellate attorney who's long since forgotten what it was like to be a trial attorney.

Most of his views on the system emanate from the rarified air of HLS academia, and from a man whose legal "practice" now consists of cherry-picked, appellate-argument-only litigation."


You sound ("frankly", the quotes around "practice", "I... wouldn't draw") like you think that your saying something derogatory about him. I imagine that he'd agree with every word you've said about him, and maybe about everything else also.

"my list wasn't influenced by his.... I don't and wouldn't draw from him for inspiration"

Maybe 'my list wasn't consciously influenced by his', I don't and wouldn't consciously draw from him for inspiration".

The "sorry" at the end sounds like you think that we're arguing about something; in fact, I have the feeling that you find something objectionable in what I wrote above. If you indeed find something objectionable, I can only apologize and say that I didn't intend to annoy you, and that if I did I still don't understand how. That should make my crime at least a little less premeditated, and get a year or two off my sentence.

As to our arguing about something, please tell me explicity if that's so. I'm from Brooklyn, and if we're arguing I'll send some boys around to explain the matter to you.

Thanks.
Cassy.

pearl5k said...

Have not read Dershowitz' book but recognize the "truth" of most if not all of the assertions. Doubt if Dershowitz was the 1st to conceptualize these ideas. Worrying about who published these notions first is rooted in the lone genius cataclysmic inspiration stereotype also known as rugged individualism. The importance of the post to me is the necessity to continuously reinforce and support the work of criminal underatanding of the role of defense attorneys as we are the guardians of the Constitution. I always say nobody likes a lawyer until they need one. Someone else said this before.

pearl5k said...

Sorry for the typos, meant to emphasize the generaly thankless nature of criminal defense work and the unfortunate need to remind its practitioners of the importance of the work for the accused and society as a whole and to continually educate the public.