Justice System Not What People Think
My friend recently went on trial for first degree murder and got life
without parole from age 21. I found out that the whole process is far
less perfect than what people think it is. And I found out that a lot
of people have similar experiences and have a deep nihilistic feeling
as a result. Because justice issues are deep in people's hearts. I
always knew before that something was making people bitter and vote
Democrat. But I never guessed what.
First of all, the police edited the video to tell a different story.
They changed the time and order of the clips. And it is obvious that
they did. And my friend's lawyer admitted to me they did. There are
two witnesses in the video who nobody knows their names and nobody
will give me video of one of them, who could tell you instantly when
the clips they are in took place. And nobody cares. I told the FDLE,
and they said it is her private lawyer's job to prosecute police
For whatever reason, her lawyer decided to keep quiet about it. And so
it is nowhere in the public record that a detective faked a crime. And
there is no price for it. All it would take is for an investigator to
get the names of two people in the video and ask "What time did this
happen?" And then if I am wrong, okay. But nobody will do it because
nobody cares. And there is nobody you can call. There should be
someone you can call.
They also clearly faked the location of the bullet and all of the
crime scene work was deeply flawed, and there is nobody you can call.
It is obscene that crime scene work like that is being used to take
people's lives. And there is no central authority to monitor and audit
it, and collect statistics like they would do for stock brokers or
nurses or any profession. They say it is the job of public defenders
to figure it out. But on the rare occasion they do, the process does
not improve, a criminal just walks.
People actually imagine that
letting criminals walk is a deterrent to police breaking the law!
Just the opposite! People blame the judges, and demand police break the law more when they see criminals walk. Then police rope innocent people and get praised for it, judges try to intervene, Republicans vote for mandatory minimums, and whole families of the incarcerated vote Democrat for 50 years.
I thought the problems were rare and unique in this one case with my friend. But when I talk about it in
the street or online, suddenly I get all these people who like my
posts more than any other thing I post about, and know exactly what I
am talking about. Many of them just blindly vote Democrat as their way
of dealing with it. Which is dysfunctional and misguided. But that is
the standard response, and the only response. That or become a
boogaloo, I guess.
Next, I was surprised that all the witnesses lie at trial (and the
prosecutors and defense lawyers). And you can prove they are lying.
And it doesn't matter. People always talk about perjury like there is
some penalty for it. There is not. A prosecutor can suborn perjury
without penalty. The only deterrent is the defense lawyer is supposed
to cross-examine the witness, it is up to the defense lawyer to
prosecute perjury. And if the defense lawyer doesn't, then the only
deterrent to perjury is you can pay a lawyer and argue ineffective
counsel three years later.
But the worst thing of all, is the rules of evidence let prosecutors
run a scam where they can pay felons to go up there, and take over the
trial with total nonsense. They paid this one girl from the jail to go
up and say my friend confessed to things that were impossible based on
physical evidence. There is no question, there is no argument, her
testimony was complete nonsense. The crime she described never
But it works. 1) The jury is under the false impression there is some
penalty or consequence for lying. She told the jury if she got caught
lying she would get life in prison. That is not true. 2) It takes a
dozen witnesses over five days to prove what she is saying is
impossible. It would otherwise take the prosecution a dozen witnesses
over five days to tell the jury what happened. 3) The jailhouse
witness is colorful and entertaining, it is the only time when half
the jurors even wake up. 4) The rules of evidence won't even let you
show most evidence of what actually happened.
The rules of evidence won't let you tell the jury what crime the
jailhouse witness was convicted of, or anything about the jailhouse
witness. So if the jailhouse witness was charged with an identical
crime and knows exactly what things the prosecution will pay her to
lie about, you can't tell the jury that. The rules of evidence would
not let the defense show the jury things that proved the jailhouse
witnesses story was not true. Like there were some drugs that were not
taken, and some other things. People, including jurors,don't know the
rules of evidence are stopping you from showing them and telling them
things they assume you would tell them. The rules of evidence give
special favor to jailhouse witnesses over every other type of
Any witness or evidence that might *confuse* the jury is blocked.
Hearsay is blocked. But
the jailhouse witness can go up and tell a crazy story that
contradicts every piece of physical evidence!
And so prosecutors go to the well with this scam over and over. And
everybody knows it is a scam. And nobody does anything about it. When
you talk about false convictions, there are two types, 1) freak events
(and public defenders), and 2) jailhouse witnesses. Republicans assume
all false convictions are freak events. Democrats assume all false
convictions are racism or can't afford a lawyer. But most false
convictions for serious crimes are felons paid to lie. And all
criminal lawyers know it, and nobody does anything about it. And if
you are able to prove what happened, with DNA or anything else, there
is zero penalty or deterrent to the prosecutor or the liar.
You also hear from Democrats how it is a problem that most cases are
settled with plea bargains. The reason that is true, is because juries
are random. They will convict at least 5% of people even if the
prosecution just sings happy birthday. Certain factors having nothing
to do with guilt will take that up to 15%. But that is a hard problem
with no good solution, that judges and legislators have already
attacked for years.
Democrats assume things like false convictions happen because people
are evil racists. But Republicans know it is the process that gives
people the incentives. If there is a deterrent, or a feedback
mechanism, people won't do it. If police and lawyers were investigated
by someone other than their peers, their behavior would improve 1000%
overnight, it is low-hanging fruit, almost a free lunch. Democrats
think they need judges who will let people out of prison after they
are convicted by racists. But you really just need to create any
deterrent to the jailhouse witness scam, and it will fix 90% of the
It is extremely easy to do something that will make a big difference,
except prosecutors will squeal like pigs, because you are taking away
their instant-conviction button that also works on the innocent. And
so Democrats can't fix it because the prosecutors cry to Republicans
that their families will be murdered if you take away their scam and
let criminals go free. So the problem never gets fixed, and it is like
a splinter driving people to vote Democrat decade after decade.
Opposition to Death Penalty
I saw that you are for justice and deterrent in the form of the death
penalty, which is a natural part of the human experience. 90% of
opposition to the death penalty comes from these sob-story cases where
a jailhouse witness lied, and DNA came along 30 years later and proved
the guy was innocent.
I will just say "all" and say all opposition to the death penalty
comes from these jailhouse witness cases which serve as proof over and
over that people are falsely convicted of murder. Get rid of the
jailhouse witnesses, and anecdotes of false convictions will largely
dry up. Especially tear-jerking anecdotes of the young, dumb, and
vulnerable who every criminal and drug dealer will see as easy meat to
take advantage of to get a sentence reduction.
Cost of Regulation
You would say we can't have a complaint line for police, because
police lock people up, everyone would complain, it would be swamped.
More than half of people who trade stocks and futures lose money, and
they have a complaint line for that. And people with no complaint line
go to the voting booth and vote Democrat, which costs even more. So
yes, having a public employee whose job is to lock people in boxes for
the rest of their life is expensive. Just like universal healthcare.
But I don't see Republicans trying to moderate ambitious
law-enforcement initiatives like they accept tragedy and try to
moderate promises for universal healthcare.
Death penalty cases would not need decades of expensive litigation if you deterred prosecutors from using the jailhouse-witness scam on day one.
You are asking for garbage and then complaining about the cost. Prosecutors are selling you a scam, a flawed product, and claiming they are saving your family from rapists and carjackers.
Term Limits for Judges
First thing, jailhouse-confession witnesses are a complete scam. And
there is no grey area, or pros and cons or anything like that. If you
have not watched a trial or looked at all the evidence in a trial that
used jailhouse-confession witnesses, I recommend not trusting the
opinion of biased parties.
I would prefer an independent institution in the executive branch like
the SEC. Because police are already to some extent given oversight by
the local citizens in their counties. And it is haphazard. In a
liberal county, they will catch hell all day for catching criminals,
and voters will try to go around them with new laws in statewide
elections. In some counties, the local citizens will be branded
racists, letting their local police get anyway with anything. In those
counties Republicans will lose votes in statewide and national
So I don't know if you mean local citizens doing the oversight. But if
so, it will just be a form of tyranny of the majority. People will not
police the police whom their own children go to school and church
with. And the pressure valve for local citizens caught on the wrong
side of it, is voting Democrat in statewide and national elections.
I am not familiar with the arguments in favor of term limits for
judges. Probably you want to make judges more responsive to the local
majority again. Which may only be a mob. Police lie to the local paper
that someone is guilty, a judge tries to stop that person from being
framed, and suddenly a mob of people who have not even seen the
evidence think the judge is public enemy #1, a radical leftist. And
again, the minority then runs to Democrats in statewide and national
elections, peeling off 5% of natural Republicans among conservative
blacks, libertarians, whatever.
I already think there is an under-supply of judges who can apply the
law fairly and evenly in rural counties. They rotate the judges
through a circuit. As an anecdote, I recently saw a judge in a
semi-rural county rotate over from the civil division. Among her many
errors, she tried to sentence a first-degree murder conviction to 30
years. And she misinterpreted the Constitution, in her belief that the
defense had to make their witnesses available to the prosecution the
same as in a civil trial.
Right-Wing Police Reform
I am a rural Southern far-right radical. I think Rush Limbaugh is a hippie, and Mark Levin lives in New York!
I absolutely support improving the police product. It is currently a steady generator of allegations of racism and votes for Democrats.
Making universal healthcare affordable by shielding doctors from malpractice liability would be politically unviable.
Making ambitious, universal, tough-on-crime justice affordable the same way, creates votes for Democrats.
If Republicans want tough policing, spend more money like you do on your health insurance. Then policemen won't quit.
My friend is serving two life sentences from age 21 for a crime that didn't even happen. They don't teach you in high school civics class,
that not only police, but also prosecutors, face ZERO PENALTY for knowingly taking an innocent person's life.
I also wonder if there needs to be some different law for technical murder. That is when someone uses every technicality available to him, to take someone's life when he doesn't need to.
I think that would be more appropriate than first degree murder, or first degree felony murder, in some cases.
The Arbery case might turn on an argument of whether they were technically legally allowed to shoot him.
But even if they were, they really did not need to shoot him and should not have been so casual to take someone's life.
If a mentally ill person is screaming at you in your front yard, the law may say you can shoot him dead.
I think that would be more like a manslaughter penalty, 15 years, if you were legally allowed to but did you really need to?
Truth and Justice
Republicans know police racism is a lie. So why do they think the current political movement is about race?
It is white people singing a song written by black people. And it is not even about Trump.
White people are for truth and justice.
1) police and prosecutors have immunity from justice
2) most major criminal cases are built on the lies of felons
3) Republicans refuse to even write down those numbers so we could have an honest debate
Even the NHS reports statistics! Burn it down!
There needs to be a new independent institution in the executive branch, like the SEC, to restore the reputation of the justice system.
Black issues are like virus facemasks. Everybody knows about them. The current political movement is white people using black people, even getting them shot, in search of delicious revenge against the police.
From what I have seen, wrongful convictions are probably far more common than anybody knows. Because Republicans and their constituents, and government employees, refuse to even write down instances of police misconduct, tabulate how often police lie on the stand, or require any kind of central reporting that would enable us to have an honest debate about the science of justice.
The news media, not the police, are emphasized in the First Amendment. The plurality of the Bill of Rights is designed to fight police. Unless you are demanding an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch to investigate wrongful convictions, don't bother making up stories about how common they are or aren't. How common they are is totally and intentionally obscured, and then you are shameless to criticize people who are forced to guess. Let's get some science, let's get an independent body to investigate. Let's publish statistics of every time a policeman is accused of perjury, every time a felon testifies.
I thought my experiences with police and prosecutors were unique. But every time I open my mouth on the street, I am surprised at all the strangers who have the same experience. And now buildings are burning. And Republicans say police aren't actually racist, so why is this happening?
Incentives, Deterrents, and Mock Trials
The point of the article is that police are not all evil, they have hearts like everyone else, maybe even bigger than average. It's a sad situation that has been created, where police are given immunity to the extent they have "good faith," so the citizens are forced to attack good faith to prevent police lying and get a fair trial.
In the conservative philosophy of Edmund Burke and Thomas Sowell, the the size of your heart is irrelevant, and the attribution of events in society to good and evil people is the popular road to death and misery. Nobody will ever be kinder and more caring than a liberal communist. They have a currency of indulgences.
Conservatives believe that behavior is dictated by the incentives and deterrents built into systems. Like Adam Smith said, the baker bakes bread for me not because he is generous, but because he is greedy. That is the "free market" system promoted by Republicans.
I hold the tragic, fallen view of the nature of man, where man will do evil, any time he has any prospect to gain anything by it. Again, that is a right-wing view of the world like Ronald Reagan, "peace through deterrence."
I see that police pay no price whatsoever for faking evidence, lying on the stand, and hiding witnesses, and a prosecutor gets no penalty for lying, and supervising perjury, in a murder case. So it is not one prosecutor, or one case. It is a system which incentivizes, and does not deter, evil behavior.
You think it is okay for police and prosecutors to lie, or to coerce felons to lie, if it convicts the guilty. So police and prosecutors decide who is guilty, before it gets to a jury. And they get away with it, it is overlooked, to the extent they are able to persuade the public the defendant is guilty, through the news media. And because fluff pieces have proven the police have good intentions, and the defendant is portrayed as an undesirable. That is a mock trial.
It takes great vigilance to resist the evil nature of man, and to continue to be one of the places in history with fair trials, not mock trials. The United States is slipping into the popular mediocrity of history with mock trials. Our criminal justice system is built on police whose crimes it is taboo to even write down a record of, and felons who are rewarded for lying with freedom! I want to "make America great again."
Appropriation of Grievances
What are Republicans doing wrong, that we are always 1% of the electorate away from losing the country to socialist nihilists? Does it have to be that way? Is the human mind so strongly programmed for socialism like heroin, that it can't be defeated? Or is there something Republicans are missing, that could help increase the brand performance of the better product?
I think there is. Republicans need to recognize that you cannot win elections in a democracy when you support perjury by police. If you refuse to change a system where police pay no penalty for lying on the stand, then you support perjury by police, you support mock trials, and you are trying to compete with the stone of injustice chained to your leg. Without even knowing it. That is the trick. Most Republicans are geeks who have no idea what is going on.
Or even worse, they suffer from "hands up don't shoot" derangement syndrome.
Sowell is associated with the phrase "voice in the wilderness." Nobody has read his books more times than I have. If you try to explain to Republicans why white people are aggrieved, and are appropriating and exaggerating the grievances of black people for their own use, you are a voice in the wilderness.
Conversations with Law Enforcement
It gives me the heebeejeebees to see normal people sit down and talk with law enforcement, when you have no idea the lying world they live in or what years in it have done to them.
I am reminded of Jesus at the Passover festival. "Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person."
I can offer you a great anecdote about what happens when normal people sit down with lying law enforcement.
Jury Instruction Scam
The Florida Supreme Court's Innocence Commission was trying to mitigate false convictions resulting from the jailhouse witness scam. Law enforcement took over the process, and it ended with a lying solution that was worse than nothing: It reminded the jury to consider the lying jailhouse witnesses.
Law enforcement wants to lie. Like many people would like to lie, if you let them get away with it. So it is only a question of whether you support law enforcement lying because you think it benefits you, or you want to reduce it by making sure there is any penalty for police lying.
Unfair Burden on the Police
Yonkers police started a policy of not going into New York City, out of fear that the unpopularity of police would lead the local political establishment to overlook perjury used against police to lock them up for crimes that didn't even happen. In a related story, false accusations made by felons against an unpopular person on a street in Ferguson, Missouri, were picked up by the media and broadcast as the truth.
I am curious if you have any statistics on what percentage of convictions in major criminal cases are based on the coerced testimony of drug felons and people with active cases, whether they be codefendants, witnesses, or jailhouse so-called witnesses. And I am curious if you have any stats on how many times local police have been accused of perjury. If you don't have these statistics, would you support the creation of an independent institution in the executive branch to collect these statistics, and prosecute reporting failures like the SEC, to build this database which could help your research?
Also, I am curious if you think the deterrence of perjury should be moved away from local politics, essentially the mob, where the institutions designed to deter perjury, whether they be defense attorneys and The Bar, judges, or internal affairs personnel, are captive to the mood of the mob as whipped up in the local paper, and don't have the tools to deter perjury through prosecution anyway. The way it currently stands, investigations of local police and prosecutors are initiated by criminals, prosecuted by the mob, and tried at the ballot box at the national level, in a most haphazard way. Real misconduct is overlooked, and fake misconduct becomes national issues. Would you support an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to initiate investigations proactively, and prosecute police and prosecutors in a much more fair, rational, and accurate way, that would spare innocents from taking their grievances to the ballot box with initiatives that damage the justice system and punish all cops unfairly?
Also, there is great demand to lock up innocents in a democracy, to get undesirables and drug users off the streets for the public good. But while the public sees jury trials as an obstacle to this public good, they are unwilling to make the legal changes necessary to serve the public good in an honest and fair way. When mandatory minimums and three strikes laws and jailhouse witnesses are insufficient to remove all undesirables, they look to police to do the dirty work. Because the public are not honest about what they demand, they push the burden onto police to lie and fake evidence and coerce witnesses, to predetermine a popular outcome of jury trials.
And while discretion is used to overlook this illegal behavior by police and prosecutors at the local level, as much as with sodomy and marijuana, it puts an undue burden on police to break the law and do unpopular things, and to sneak around in the shadows, to achieve a popular policy outcome. Would you support a Constitutional amendment to allow tribunals of elected judges, or ballot measures with the names of the accused, instead of jury trials in certain cases, in order to relieve police of the burden to engage in misconduct, even though they may be largely shielded from actual legal consequences by their peers and the local political establishment?
Would you support new "undesirables" laws similar to felony murder, but which are much more sweeping, such as locking up anyone with a prior drug arrest who is in the vicinity of a crime for 15 years? These measures would remove an unfair burden from police, who are currently forced to drive around all day in a fruitless search for evidence they can use to meet the public demand to lock up undesirables who are innocent of a particular crime. And it would remove the burden from sheriffs who are currently tasked with providing case information to other inmates, and coercing jailhouse witnesses - even letting dangerous felons out of prison - to swear other inmates confessed to what they are accused of.
Do you agree the voter should pass laws to get what they want, rather than putting the burden on police to hack the system to achieve something it is not designed for, using lies to accuse the innocent to satisfy the local mob? Do you agree pro-police and tough-on-crime candidates should run on a platform supporting these changes, rather than exposing their police to all kinds of violence and legal retribution to get the desired results the way it is currently done?
Do you agree police should be paid more, like doctors, and given liability insurance, and regulated at the state level, and held liable for civil and criminal misconduct which currently creates unredressed injustice and drives voters into the arms of socialists?
It is not rational to ignore grievances, just because less than half of people have family members who suffered unredressed injustice at the hands of local police and prosecutors. The relevant number is: What number of people from likely Republican demographics have family members who suffered undredressed injustice at the hands of police? And compare that number, to the few thousand votes Republicans are winning (or losing) by at the state level.
Tyranny of the majority works great in safe districts. But if you are not actually a majority, you need to appeal to some of those aggrieved voters, by addressing their grievances. And I know, Republicans will say what grievances, police are not actually racist. Yes, most of the protesters are actually white people, many of them carrying guns. Do they really all like socialism? Or do they more likely just have a grudge against the police?
In an election that could have been about socialism, I don't know why Republicans have decided to add a new issue and run on cop worship. It is old Republicans, running on an old playbook from 30 years ago.
It almost makes you wonder if BLM added the marxist stuff, and Democrats added the racism stuff, to make sure they could poison the pill to where Republicans could not swallow it. And this guaranteed only Democrats could ever offer any kind of appeal to people aggrieved by fixable problems in the justice system. And it enabled Democrats to own the issue, and forced Republicans to run against it.
And these fossils, reciting stump speeches that were originally recorded on Betamax, are just fishing in the old pond again.
Newt Gingrich is a fossil reciting talking points from 30 years ago. He is right that people feel strongly about criminal justice. What he is missing is there is a popular perception that police are victimizing the innocent without consequence, and that there is unredressed injustice at the hands of government employees.
This concept has been a consistent driver of political events throughout American history. People want law and justice and they see police and prosecutors as immune criminals, just like under the King of England.
There is no money or heroin inside that courthouse. But Republicans' minds are so confused by "hands up don't shoot" they cannot see reality. Never mind that most major criminal convictions are built on the coerced testimony of felons who are much more desperate to lie than anyone on that street in Ferguson. Republicans love lies being used in the justice system, just not against the overclass.
Republicans have very simple minds like peasants who love the king. Nobody is advocating that murderers be rehabilitated and let out of prison like Democrats advocated for 50 years ago. Quite the opposite, people are advocating that police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent, be brought to justice. Even if they were faithfully executing the king's instructions. Kind of like those who wrote the Declaration of Independence didn't like the king's soldiers getting away with murder.
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
The Bill of Rights is clearly an anti-police document. And Republicans are unashamedly in favor of using police like an overclass of samurais to whom no laws apply, to protect the local fief. Such as Greenwood Village, Colorado. Or Yonkers, New York. Or Brevard County, Florida.
Paging Dr. Thomas Sowell
Sowell agrees with Hayek's concept that cultural memes and institutions have evolved to constrain and complement human nature, which is inappropriately designed for a tribal environment with a single vantage point.
What do you think Sowell would say is the institution in our civilization, to deter local police misconduct? Obviously police won't be investigated by their peers. And obviously a tyranny of the local majority will reward police who bypass the Bill of Rights by predetermining the outcome of what are mock trials, to lock up whomever is considered undesirable by the local majority. As is the demand and tradition throughout human history.
The current check or balance on the process, is statewide and national elections, where the sum of local minorities can form a critical mass to influence policy. Do you think Sowell would consider national elections an appropriate locus of knowledge and decision making to deter and punish individual police for local examples of misconduct?
Do you think Sowell would consider the public defender an adequate knowledge process to determine when police faked evidence, or when jailhouse so-called witnesses are coerced to lie? Do you think Sowell would consider judges who set criminals free, a system with adequate deterrents to police and prosecutors lying and supervising perjury, and coercing felons to lie and letting felons out of prison as a reward for lying?
Suppose I had undeniable proof of police and prosecutors faking evidence to give a person life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen. In the beginning of Knowledge and Decisions, Sowell wrote of an advance warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but no institution to collect and verify and act upon that information. What is the institution that I could bring my information to?
And keep in mind, it is needed to prevent an equal disaster when, as de Tocqueville might have imagined (and as Sowell suggests in his arguments for capital punishment), a critical mass of people realize they can vote their family members out of prison.
Checks and Balances
You know where there are no checks and balances, and there is tyranny of the majority? In the one government institution that touches the most people most often, with the most serious consequences: Policing.
Suppose the Mayor of your town, or the 51% majority who elects the Sheriff, decides to ignore or suppress reports of police misconduct, and make sure there is no penalty whatsoever for police who commit perjury and fake evidence.
The police can lock up whomever the local majority wants locked up, on fake charges, simply for being an undesirable. And they will win votes for locking up the innocent.
And there is no independent institution in the executive branch at the state level to compel reporting with punishment for reporting failures like the SEC, and proactively initiate investigations into police and prosecutor misconduct.
All investigations into government employees in criminal justice, all regulation, is supposed to be done by criminals and judges, who hold no real deterrent.
And these only regulators, by design, have been declared illegitimate. And nobody wants to take on local governments, on behalf of people whom the paper have labeled criminals, with zero liability for libel.
So there is literally no check or balance on local police absolute power. The only check is the sum of local minorities voting for the opposing party, in statewide and national elections. But when the opposing party wins, they don't address individual instances of misconduct, they let everyone out of prison. Because the families of the guilty have just as many votes as the families of those wrongly convicted based on police perjury. So there needs to be an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch at the state level, to prosecute and deter police and prosecutors, by punishing them when they victimize the innocent.
I hit my "limit of free articles" before ever getting to read one Spectator article. But "America has an under-incarceration problem" really sounds like an inside joke making fun of people like Ann Coulter. Or maybe it is your last pandering gasp to sell a banner click.
Did you know that 100% of people who commit murder, either were or weren't ever arrested before? So if you locked up everyone who ever was or wasn't arrested, you could end murder! It is too bad that the only political alternative to Marxists, is people who would nominate candidates with a platform of locking up 100% of people (except themselves) if they could. Like all authoritarians, they would be surprised when the golem delivers something other than what they imagined, and eats its creators.
You might never have read any history. But the Founders of the USA didn't sail across the ocean to escape crime or to worship cops. On the contrary, they wrote a historic anti-cop screed, the Bill of Rights. Because this idea of locking up everyone you don't like, to achieve utopia, is as corrupt in real life, and ridiculous, as the communist utopia or any other blather pushed on a bored bourgeoisie.
If we could lock up everyone, whom would we lock up? Of course not murderers, but simply anyone who votes for the other party. You say we are locking up so many people and yet there is still murder. Could it be that if you locked up more people there would be even more murder? Could it be we are already locking up millions of people, but for some reason we will continue missing murderers no matter how many we lock up? What if your math or other simple assumptions are wrong? Has anyone with an armed big government plan ever been wrong, have actual government results ever been something that didn't fulfill the promises of the designers?
What's your next great idea, utopia through the expansion of the Post Office or DMV?
I am pretty sure Fidel Castro did lock up or deport almost every undesirable. Which of course you could never come close to doing in a democracy. Because, as de Tocqueville might have pointed out, voters would realize they could vote ALL their family members out of prison. But it is strange that in the countries with no Bill of Rights, and where police have absolute power (and where democracy doesn't limit incarceration), there is still crime, in fact more murder and less justice.
But good luck selling the utopia to some bored housewives!
Dear Representative Spanberger
I disagree that "defund the police" cost your party in the 2020 election. The reason why police are hated, why reforming them caused you trouble in your local election, and why hatred of the police defeated Donald Trump, are all the same reason: gerrymandering, tyranny of the local majority.
Police are loved by the local political establishment in every district, and hated by the minority. Because police are regulated by the local majority. The Mayor, or the 51% who elect the Sheriff, can overlook and even reward police perjury, to predetermine the outcome of trials, and lock up any member of the minority they want. And the local majority can reward discretion, to protect members of the local majority - the mayor's son, the corrupt donor - from prosecution.
So the local minority will always try to get relief from tyranny of the local majority, by voting for the other party in statewide and national elections. And the sum of local minorities makes a difference at the statewide and national level.
Suppose a state has 50 popular people, and 50 undesirables. Suppose there are 5 districts each with 20 people. One district has 20 undesirables. The other 4 districts each have 7 or 8.
The popular party will be so safe in their 4 districts, they will be corrupt and torture not only undesirables, but members of their own community. So the undesirables, and one or two marginalized popular people, will vote for the undesirable party at the statewide level, in each popular district.
That is 9 votes for the undesirable party, and 11 votes for the popular party, in all four popular districts. That is 36 votes, plus all 20 in the undesirable district, equals 56 votes at the statewide level. The undesirables are crushed in 80% of districts, and still win President.
I bet if Ron DeSantis told you his friend was framed for murder by
crooked Florida prosecutors, you would listen to him. So people who
are politically connected don't get framed for murder by scumbag cops,
and people who aren't politically connected get abused.
Hey, that would be SYSTEMIC RACISM. It is not because you are actually
racist. But the effect is that black people, who are less likely to
know Ron DeSantis or Chris Sprowls, are more likely to be framed for
And here Thomas Sowell said it was impossible to prove systemic racism exists.
I guarantee if there were no black people like Sweden, white people
would have more of a problem with crooked cops and prosecutors framing
people. So because the US is racially and culturally diverse, makes
people less sensitive to the suffering of other races. How could we
test this hypothesis? Compare sentences, the use of coerced testimony,
and other aspects of the justice system, to democracies that are more
And here senile fuckface Thomas Sowell has the entire Republican party
singing like parrots in the zoo, that it is scientifically impossible
to define hypotheses to test if there is "systemic racism".
Fuck all of you scumbag election losers. See you where idiots go, socialist hell.
Dear Texas State Senator
The proposed jailhouse witness legislation HB 2631 is a fake fix that will at most cure 5% of false convictions, and might increase them. It is a politically feasible fake fix, from theorists who have not actually sat in a trial and watched jailhouse witnesses lie for hours like I have.
First, the jury instruction. Jurors don't pay attention to jury instructions. Their instructions in murder cases are dozens of pages long, with lesser charges and required conditions. When supposedly honest government employees in suits tell jurors to listen to a person, no balanced written instruction is going to change their perceptions.
If the jury instruction has any effect or is even noticed or remembered, it can make things worse. The jury instruction can mislead the jury to imagine they are the first person to wonder if the jailhouse witness is a liar. Defense attorneys are not allowed to say "this person is lying" or tell jurors that jailhouse witnesses usually are liars, or be open and honest about what is going on. So everyone in the courtroom except the jury can know the jailhouse witness is lying. But the jury instruction makes it seem like everybody else in the room assumes it is the truth, and it is the job of the jurors to break from the pack and be the first ones to question whether the jailhouse witness is honest.
So far as a reliability hearing, the judge literally has no basis to know whether a jailhouse witness is lying. I drank two glasses of water today. Am I lying? Judges cannot choose to allow hearsay, and nor should they be allowed to. But politics will force judges to allow jailhouse witnesses to testify, unless their testimony is so inconsistent, that they could have already been discredited in front of the jury.
There is no evidence that judges will bar additional jailhouse witnesses whom jurors would have believed. Remember, judges ALREADY have the ability to acquit defendants after the prosecution rests, if they think the jailhouse witness is unreliable. And they are afraid to. The judge is captive to the same political incentives, as the prosecutor who puts on a fraud for votes.
The pretrial reliability hearing just puts a facade of legitimacy on an almost certain liar and false conviction. The number of people in jail willing to lie to get out, is a thousand times larger than the number of people willing to confess to stay in. And so jailhouse witnesses are 1000-to-1 liars.
Suppose someone told you that all I had to do to get out of prison, is say I drank two glasses of water today. Then you would know I was lying. So how come the jury doesn't figure that out? Because this is the jury's first day here, they have no idea what is going on. They assume it can't really be that simple and that crooked. They assume the people who know what is going on, would not all zip up their lips and put it on the jury to figure out the trick.
How is the jury supposed to know the government pays people to lie, unless somebody tells them? How is the jury supposed to know the legislature is happy to let liars out of prison to lock up perceived undesirables, unless somebody tells them?
The result of HB 2631 is basically a trial by judge, instead of by jury. The judge is put on the spot to put a stamp on a false conviction, whatever crap the prosecutor wants to coerce and manufacture. While the victim's family who have been lied to by the prosecution, stand there and cry on TV. From that point it is a mock trial, a complete scam. It is a process to convict anyone, regardless of guilt, based on the pressure of the mob on the judge and prosecutor. It is whatever the 51% outside the courthouse want, a witch trial.
Here is an analysis of the failed jury instruction in Florida:
Florida Supreme Court Innocence Commission Embarrassing Charade
Here is an analysis of the general impact of coerced jailhouse witnesses:
Coerced Jailhouse Confession Witness Satanic Scam
And here is a story about someone serving life without parole from age 21, for a crime that didn't happen, based on lying jailhouse witnesses, and a judge who was politically afraid to do anything about a mock trial:
The only real fix is to not let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to victimize the innocent, and to create penalties for perjury and those who supervise it, and an independent institution to prosecute it. That will never happen.
I will make sure nobody gets political credit for this sissy fake fix, that will continue putting innocents in prison and letting dangerous felons out.