Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
William Barr is a
Debating with the
Letters to my
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Worse than Immigration
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Quick History of
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Common Cause of
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Juries With Politicians
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
Legislative Proposals for Republican Electoral Expansion and the Defeat of Socialism
1) No Jailhouse Confession Witnesses.
It is a strange situation where I can sit here and know as sure as the sky is blue, that jailhouse confession witnesses are garbage 99.999% of the time, and take over trials with nonsense. And yet I know the human race is built throughout history on this sort of thing, and a proposal to not do it won't be taken seriously. Confessions in general are like Paulie Cicero said to Henry Hill about heroin: Just don't do it. Like I have said elsewhere, Thomas Jefferson wanted to drill a hole through people's noses, but not ask them if they did it. You can produce 10, 100 confessions for every 1 guilty person. Why not go to the carnival and throw rings for a pink elephant? Because you won't even catch the Hamburglar with confessions. You will clog your net with incompetents.
2) No Sentences Over 15 Years from Coerced Testimony
The easiest way to get any conviction, is to find a felon who talks well, and threaten him until he tells a story that will get convictions. I am not proposing removing plea bargains and other types of coercion altogether. But I would rather give prosecutors a choice: Go out and produce hard evidence, produce normal witnesses, or limit yourself to 15 years. Plenty of people would still get life and the needle. The cost when they did, would drop 95%. Someone will have some crazy legal argument that either coerced felons are credible or they aren't; you shouldn't give even 15 years if they aren't, you should give life if the jury thinks they are. You are cracking open the burden of proof! I still like my proposal.
3) Require Standardized Central Reporting
Standardized central reporting of all events in the justice system like with the healthcare system, with a penalty for reporting failures, would enable an honest debate. And it would enable the discovery of real opportunities for improvement without letting all the real criminal menaces out. It would provide a deterrent to misconduct and abuse of the rules. And it would start to bend the curve on the anti-cop nihilist demographic. I want all police misconduct, all alleged perjury, every time a prosecutor lies, every time a coerced or rewarded witness testifies, and what category of witness, centrally published. I would like IQ tests of those found guilty versus plea bargain and so on, but that is not practical. Age would suffice. Are sly old criminals cutting deals to testify against naive young innocents?
4) Relocate Monitoring And Deterrence Away From Local Politics
Police misconduct cannot be dealt with by anyone in the same zip code. It needs to be punished, because judges letting criminals go is not a deterrent to police. Prosecutors lying and coercing perjury and hiding evidence cannot be monitored by The Bar or other lawyers. It has to be independent in the executive branch at the state level. And it has to be proactive, not reactive to a mob. Maybe all this would start to bend the curve on perjury.
5) Make Laws Reflect the Mainstream of Culture
When society embraces sodomy and marijuana, the justice system uses discretion to stop enforcing the law. If people don't like mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws, maybe they should be revisited. Is there a less blunt way to address criminals who seem to be getting away with it? Is there a way that can better separate between true menaces to society, and more harmless people? And I really don't think it is Constitutional, to give the prosecution or victim a right to a racially random jury, or to block defendants from presenting so many types of evidence.
I expect the chance of getting any of these legislative changes is zero. Instead, I expect Democrats to win eventually, and deliver who knows what insane garbage. I will move to Wyoming.
Alternative to Jailhouse Confession Witnesses
An alternative to jailhouse confession witnesses, would be a Constitutional amendment to allow some kind of military tribunal in capital cases. Or who knows, maybe even a 90% statewide democratic vote to convict people, a ballot measure.
Because let's be honest, there are some people whom the police and the local paper think are guilty, but they can't actually prove it in front of a jury. And they would like a way to convict those people.
So there is social demand to lock people up whom someone other than a jury is certain is guilty, based on some type of evidence that won't work in a trial. So let's be honest about it, and up front about it. If there really is demand to lock people up who can't be convicted in a jury trial without using a scam, then let's be honest that's what the jailhouse confession scam is and what we really want to do.
And let's get proposals, and vote on them democratically for how to do it within the law without cheating, without letting felons out of prison to do it, and with full disclosure to the voter what is going on.
Honest Policy on Coerced Felon Testimony
The attitude of the public toward coercing felons to testify against each other, for reduced sentences, is "Who cares what really happened? We are locking up undesirables. We are turning them against each each other, and forcing them to lie about each other. You don't like it, you shouldn't have been hanging out with lowlifes."
So the real crime is not the crime they are convicted of, it is being an undesirable. It is being a person whom newspapers can incite the public to hate you, and actual witnesses will change their stories to get you convicted, and jurors will search Google and say "guilty" so they can make it home for dinner, and police misconduct will be overlooked to lock you up. There is a genuine public demand in a democracy, to lock up people the mob doesn't like.
I don't see an obvious way to write legislation that says "you get 15 years for being there when undesirables break the law." Prior-convict bystander law? But that's the idea of the 15-year sentence limit for convictions based on coerced testimony. We should be honest about what we are doing, in a democracy. Otherwise we will lose elections, and half the people will be in great distress for not knowing why.
General Problems in the Justice System
1) Asymmetry in criminal prosecution is not recognized by perverted case law and checks and balances.
The Bill of Rights recognizes that the government has the money, the power, and and the popular support to victimize the innocent. But case law doesn't recognize this asymmetry. To address the fact that juries are sort of a mob, judges have said you can't show the jury evidence the accused is a drug user. But what if the accused went to a friend's house to buy drugs, and that is part of the defense narrative of the defendant walking in on a murder? Judge will say you can't show the jury the real reason the defendant was there, because the victim was a drug user. Or what if a defense witness has prior convictions for burglary? Can't bias the jury against the defendant with that information. Now what if that same witness is a prosecution witness, who claims he witnessed a burglary? You can't tell the jury the the prosecution witness was convicted of a burglary with the exact same details he claims he witnessed.
Defendants will always lie and say they didn't do it. So defense lawyers don't want to be penalized by The Bar for lying. Now the Bar to be fair, won't penalize prosecutors for telling obvious lies. So because it is silly to try to stop criminals lying, prosecutors are allowed to lie to convict the innocent, without sanction.
There is a recent law that says nobody can remove a juror based on race. They didn't want prosecutors removing black people from a jury of a black defendant. In practice, it means prosecutors can stack the jury with white people, or even with Japanese people who are not peers and have no provincial knowledge that would enable them to "use their common sense" as the jury instruction says. If a defendant tries to remove Japanese people to get a jury of his peers that will actually understand tackle football or something, the prosecutor can object to it. As if the state or the victim has a Constitutional right to a jury of racially diverse people. What seems like a simple law becomes in practice a way for releasing the guilty and convicting the innocent, for randomizing outcomes with laws that arbitrarily help one defendant and hurt another. But explaining this complex topic is too big to do here.
2) Judges are expected to deter misconduct, but they have no power to punish, and couldn't use it anyway because they are captive of the local political establishment.
There can be rampant perjury in the courtroom. But there is no enforcer. The judge does not have the political capital to do something different from what the prosecution wants. Judges can't penalize prosecutors who victimize the innocent even if they wanted to. Their deterrent is to set the innocent, or even criminals free, when the state breaks the rules. But that is not a deterrent to the state breaking the rules, and the judge gets penalized, to the extent police and prosecutors outnumber them, and have a larger political voice to tell the narrative of the judge protecting criminals. Even if the defendant was innocent and the cop was a criminal. Then the voters come back with mandatory minimums, so that other voters come back with jailbreaks.
3) Locally, the law is enforced unevenly, there is tyranny of the majority.
In Republican localities, they will refuse to even write down instances of police misconduct. In Democrat localities, they will prosecute police for misconduct that did not even happen. The regulator becomes the voter in statewide and national elections. Republicans and Democrats both lose votes, because of local behavior in their safe districts. But changes at the state and national level do not always match well the problems at the local level. If a cop lies in a police report, or fakes evidence, we don't need to elect a marxist President who will let everyone out of prison. There just needs to be some independent body not subject to local or even national politics, to investigate and punish the cop.
Nobody can listen to the complaints of 100% of criminals who claim cops cheated. So investigations of police are currently initiated by criminals, prosecuted by the mob, and tried at the ballot box. If a stock went up on high volume before a merger announcement, the SEC would investigate without waiting for someone to complain. If a homeless person is murdered, or there is a crop of marijuana in a national forest, the police don't wait for a complaint to investigate. In many cases bringing the family members of victims into prosecution decisions, only makes the decisions worse informed and more corruptible.
Local districts enforce what they wish the law was. If a drug dealer is arrested, it is desirable to use the opportunity to lock up all his undesirable and thug friends at the same time. Local voters may think it is totally appropriate for a cop to lie, to achieve this "moral" outcome they desire, even if their party will lose elections at the state level with this platform. Especially safe local districts need some incentive, some penalty to straighten out, or else they manufacture demand for federal power. That is what slavery did to states rights. The sin of slavery killed states rights. Railroading people with crooked trials is locally popular, with the same result.
4) The cheapest way to prosecute criminal cases is by coercing felons to make up stories.
The Bill of Rights and human experience recognizes it is much cheaper to coerce a confession at the jail, than to go around gathering evidence. Especially in cases where the parties are involved in drugs or prostitution or even spousal cheating, or computer crime, or just private business. Everybody keeps their mouth shut and all the phone calls and everything is too secretive to track down. So police find a felon who talks the best, and can most plausibly have some idea what happened, and threaten him with a mandatory minimum unless he can produce a story that will be valuable to produce some convictions. Even worse if it is the jailhouse witness scam. Such witnesses are not even required to get anything about the crime right. They just say the defendant admitted guilt, and I wasn't there so I don't know the actual details.
5) Felony murder and mandatory minimums and case law have increased the role of felons who are coerced to lie in the courtroom.
Felony murder and mandatory minimums mean anyone in the vicinity can be threatened with life. And case law designed to prevent juries from being biased against the defendant and defense witnesses, means you also cannot tell the jury the full information about felons who are coerced to testify for the prosecution. And while perjury is rampant in the courtroom, and there is no penalty for prosecutors and prosecution witnesses who lie, the jury imagines there is a penalty for perjury, and prosecutors are for honesty. And you are not allowed to tell the jury the truth that prosecutors lie to win cases and there is no sanction and there is actually a political reward for it. And it evolves, and refines a process, that becomes a factory built around lying felons who talk well and know the game, shifting criminal punishment onto the innocent and incompetent.
Felony murder requires just suggesting to the jury what was in someone's mind. It is not based on evidence. The defendant doesn't have to be in the building where the crime occurred. You just have to have one person testify that you sold someone a gun with knowledge that it would be used in a burglary. The sentences and the laws are too powerful, and the burden of proof too low, and the ease of coercing felons to provide the simple lies that support convictions too abundant, so that it magnifies the problem of uneven enforcement of the law based on local politics. In Republican districts, felony murder will be used to convict the innocent for political gain. In Democrat districts, it will be used on the police themselves. It is too powerful and too easy, and in practice it is combined with coerced testimony and politics, to be a wild and unregulated tool for injustice.
General Problems in the Justice System Legislative Concepts
I don't know what to do about case law. But at least actual laws should be written with asymmetry in mind, like it is illegal for a prosecutor to remove jurors based on race, but legal for a defendant to do so. Republicans should not be afraid to nominate judges who support the right to a jury trial, meaning the defendant is allowed to tell the jury true facts, even facts about the victim and prosecution witnesses. Otherwise you convict the innocent as often as the guilty, with stuff aimed at the guilty (or even designed to help the innocent in a different case), and you get a backlash.
There needs to be more records, so we can have an honest debate about the role of coercing felons to lie in the justice system. I want a record of every time a convict or person with an active case gets a sentence reduction or other deal for testifying. And I want to know whether it is an actual witness who is accused, an actual witness who is a bystander, or a jailhouse confession witness, or a drug informant or whatever. I want to know every time a cop or prosecutor is accused of perjury or misconduct. I want required reports, like the SEC, so that investigation and enforcement can be standardized and evenly monitored and regulated across districts. Probably at the state level.
And I want an independent institution in the executive branch to do it. State prosecutors and cops don't prosecute prosecutors and cops, except unfairly at best, when driven by the mob. There also has to be some way to reduce perjury in general, which is rampant. Probably take away the incentives, such as jailhouse confession witnesses, and cops who have immunity when they lie with good will from the mob based on what is in the local paper, and witnesses who just say what they read in the paper.
I think jailhouse confession witnesses should be 100% illegal right off, it is just garbage in 99.999% of cases, worse than hearsay. And it gums up the whole justice system, and creates all kinds of opposition to the death penalty, and even to incarceration in general.
There could be some new intermediate crimes, between murder and accessory, that are lighter than felony murder. Like there should be a crime between murder and stand your ground. Did you have the right to kill someone on your property, but maybe it could have been avoided? There are gray areas in plea bargains. But there need to be more intermediate crimes in jury trials. If we are going to be honest. Crimes like manslaughter are there, but their abstract definitions don't technically fit common events.
Mandatory minimums and three strikes laws manufacture Democrat voters demanding federal power, more reliably than immigration. Especially when combined with the way convictions are manufactured with the coerced testimony of felons. And drug sentences where the victim pays to kill himself, and Republicans wouldn't hesitate to give the victim life in prison. Millions of people in prison, often stupid people whom a lying felon was able to shift the blame to, means millions of families and sympathizers voting Democrat for decades.
Any ideas? Email 2ulive on gmail