USA's Laws Are Too Soft On Crime

[Valjean]

No, it isn't. Using Blackstone makes it more difficult to convict the innocent but at the same time it makes it more difficult to convict the guilty. There's no free lunch.

Which is worse, an innocent wrongly convicted, or a culprit escaping prosecution?

Making the right decisions on crime as often as humanly possible would not result in a justice system that gave us any reason for shame.

But what about your tough(er) on crime stance. What would that involve?
We already seem to have a plague of overzealous policing. Have you noticed all the protests letely?

 

[joe1776]

The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.

While the idea of convicting the innocent is revolting, avoiding it should not be the primary goal.

I see the above two statements as completely contradictory. Convicting the innocent is the complete opposite of protecting the innocent. So if you're willing to let the system convict innocent people you really can't say that your primary goal is to protect innocent people. We bestow upon the criminal justice system the unique and very powerful authority to deny citizens their freedoms and liberties. In order to truly protect innocent people it's imperative that we develop a system that holds the criminal justice system to an extremely high standard.

What you're calling the 'Blackstone bias' is simply another name for those high standards it's imperative we require of law enforcement. Like insisting that police have a valid warrant prior to searching a citizen's home. It's a law and if the state breaks that law when an officer searches a person's home without a valid warrant then the state needs to be punished. The punishment for failing to abide by the law is that law enforcement can't use any evidence found during that search in a court of law.

So when a police officer illegally searches a citizen's home and finds irrefutable evidence that the citizen killed his wife, it's easy to see the fact that this evidence can't be used in court to convict the criminal of a crime as a 'loophole' that the law provides for the criminal, because justice for the wife of the citizen certainly hasn't been served. But the lack of justice for the wife isn't due to the system being 'too soft' on crime, it's due to the fact that law enforcement broke the law by searching a citizen's house illegally. And it's absolutely essential that there be consequences for the state when they break the law, otherwise no police officer will ever have the incentive to get a legal warrant to search a person's home.

I agree that the primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm. But that doesn't just mean protecting innocent victims of crime, it also means protecting innocent citizens from conviction, because being convicted of a crime you didn't commit IS serious harm. And the only way to ensure that such harm doesn't occur is to hold our law enforcement to the highest of standards.

You call them high standards, I call them biased standards. Let's use your example: If a police officer illegally searches a home, that act is illegal and the officer should be penalized. But there is no reason that the evidence found should not be presented to the jury if justice for the slain wife is our concern. No reason other than the Blackstone bias, that is. Blackstone shifts our concern from extracting justice to protecting the rights of the criminal.

 

[joe1776]

Which is worse, an innocent wrongly convicted, or a culprit escaping prosecution?

If it was a one on one tradeoff the innocent wrongly convicted. But it isn't a one on one tradeoff.

But what about your tough(er) on crime stance. What would that involve?

Dumping Blackstone would be a start. That would affect many laws favoring criminals.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You call them high standards, I call them biased standards. Let's use your example: If a police officer illegally searches a home, that act is illegal and the officer should be penalized. But there is no reason that the evidence found should not be presented to the jury if justice for the slain wife is our concern. No reason other than the Blackstone bias, that is. Blackstone shifts our concern from extracting justice to protecting the rights of the criminal.

The police officer is acting as an agent of the state. You can't arrest the police officer for breaking the law against illegal searches and then allow the state to go ahead and benefit from it's agent's illegal actions. The state must have an incentive to follow the laws against illegal searches in order to insure the protection of innocent citizens from serious harm. We are not shifting the concerns from extracting justice to protecting the rights of the criminal... it's the rights of all innocent citizens to be free from illegal searches that's being protected. That particular criminal just happens to share the same right as any other citizen.

And it's not any 'Blackstone bias' that ends up protecting the criminal, it's a result of the state's agent failing to follow the law. There is no 'Blackstone bias' that would allow the criminal to have the evidence ignored, if that evidence had been obtained lawfully. It's the actions of the agents of the state that forced that evidence to be ignored because of their failure to obtain the evidence lawfully.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Generally, I lean way left on politics. You can call me a progressive or a liberal --- except on criminal justice. On this issue, the conservatives are right: our laws are too soft on crime.

Do you agree with these goals?

-- The goal of all decision-making systems should be to make the correct decision as consistently as humanly possible.

-- The primary goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from serious harm.

If those goals seem right to you, then it might surprise you to learn that the USA's criminal justice system isn't designed to accomplish either goal. Its goal is based on the Blackstone Ratio.

In criminal law, Blackstone's ratio (also known as the Blackstone's formulation) is the idea that: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. While the idea of convicting the innocent is revolting, avoiding it should not be the primary goal.

The result of the Blackstone goal is a body of laws that go overboard in favor of the accused. At the same time, these laws make it difficult to convict the guilty thus undermining the goals of making the correct decisions as consistently as possible along with the goal of protecting innocent citizens from serious harm.

Our justice system isn't very good at rendering justice but it's been a boon for the movie industry. The arrogant killer skating free on a technicality, the tough cop who goes outside the law to render justice, the prosecutor who cheats to get convictions, the relative of the victim hellbent on vengeance, these characters are staples in Hollywood dramas as art imitates American life.

At the moment, the problem of racism's effect on our criminal justice system is on our mind -- and there's no doubt about it -- racism is a serious problem in criminal justice. But it's just one of the problems of a poorly designed system

The conservatives are right on this issue. Because of the Blackstone Blunder, our laws are too soft on crime.

Your thoughts?

The laws that you say 'protect the criminal' are actually the laws put in place to protect every single citizen's constitutional rights against abuses by the state. The only time those laws serve to protect guilty criminals is when the state breaks a law designed to protect all citizen's constitutional rights. There's nothing about these laws that protects a guilty criminal when evidence is obtained lawfully. The only time they get a 'loophole' is when agents of the state break the law in order to obtain the evidence.

 

[Valjean]

The laws that you say 'protect the criminal' are actually the laws put in place to protect every single citizen's constitutional rights against abuses by the state. The only time those laws serve to protect guilty criminals is when the state breaks a law designed to protect all citizen's constitutional rights. There's nothing about these laws that protects a guilty criminal when evidence is obtained lawfully. The only time they get a 'loophole' is when agents of the state break the law in order to obtain the evidence.

And if the state infraction were allowed to stand it would establish a precedent, and open the door to widespread abuses.

 

[oldbadger]

Here you get the "justice" you can afford. To obtain convictions, the US uses a strange "plea bargain" system where suspects are given a dangerous choice between a short sentence if they plead guilty, or a long one should they dare -- with overworked, state supplied counsel -- to contest their guilt.

Hi.....

That happens here as well.
A neighbour was sent for trial in an assault case and before he could plead his guilt or innocence the Judge let him know (very aggressively) that if he pleaded not-guilty and was convicted that he would go to prison for three years. He lost his nerve, pleaded 'guilty' and was ankle-tagged for 6 months. But because of that he had a criminal record for violence which he would have to declare (if asked) for 5 years, and declare for some job applications for his whole life. I was very sad to hear that he switched his plea..... but he did.

 

[joe1776]

The police officer is acting as an agent of the state. You can't arrest the police officer for breaking the law against illegal searches and then allow the state to go ahead and benefit from it's agent's illegal actions. The state must have an incentive to follow the laws against illegal searches in order to insure the protection of innocent citizens from serious harm. We are not shifting the concerns from extracting justice to protecting the rights of the criminal... it's the rights of all innocent citizens to be free from illegal searches that's being protected. That particular criminal just happens to share the same right as any other citizen.

And it's not any 'Blackstone bias' that ends up protecting the criminal, it's a result of the state's agent failing to follow the law. There is no 'Blackstone bias' that would allow the criminal to have the evidence ignored, if that evidence had been obtained lawfully. It's the actions of the agents of the state that forced that evidence to be ignored because of their failure to obtain the evidence lawfully.

You say that "it's not any 'Blackstone bias' that ends up protecting the criminal, it's a result of the state's agent failing to follow the law." However, you're giving me a legal judgment which has Blackstone as its premise..

Reasonable minds, not trying to play lawyer, would not reach the same decision as you have. It's a matter of weighing two factors. Which is the most important?

-- The violation of the property rights of the killer-husband or...

-- the protection of innocent citizens and justice for the murdered wife

The detective should receive a slap on the wrist for his violation. However, it can't be ignored that he acted in pursuit of his primary duty to protect the innocent public. Absent the Blackstone bias, it's an easy call.

 

[joe1776]

And if the state infraction were allowed to stand it would establish a precedent, and open the door to widespread abuses.

That's the old slippery slope argument, usually a fallacy.

The question is where do you draw the line? When abuses happen you deal with them one at a time. Since no two situations are exactly alike, the idea that precedents carry weight is nonsense.

 

[metis]

Studies I have seen in the past have shown that the best deterrent to crime is having more police on the beat, not longer sentences. Criminals don't intend to get caught, so that's less of a deterrent that knowing there's a greater chance of getting caught.

 

[ecco]

correct the behavior of the convicted and return him to society

Give 'em all anterior lobotomies!

 

[QuestioningMind]

You say that "it's not any 'Blackstone bias' that ends up protecting the criminal, it's a result of the state's agent failing to follow the law." However, you're giving me a legal judgment which has Blackstone as its premise..

Reasonable minds, not trying to play lawyer, would not reach the same decision as you have. It's a matter of weighing two factors. Which is the most important?

-- The violation of the property rights of the killer-husband or...

-- the protection of innocent citizens and justice for the murdered wife

The detective should receive a slap on the wrist for his violation. However, it can't be ignored that he acted in pursuit of his primary duty to protect the innocent public. Absent the Blackstone bias, it's an easy call.

You're asking the wrong questions. It should be, which is more important:

- Justice for the murdered wife or...

- Protection of EVERY SINGLE American citizens' right not to have their property rights violated by the state.

Because the laws that are in place that REQUIRE agents of the state to have a VALID search warrant aren't designed to protect criminals, they are designed to protect innocent citizens from abuses by the state.

So lets take a close look at what would happen if we indeed decided that when an agent of the state violates a citizen's constitutional right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches gets a 'slap on the wrist', while the state gets to go ahead and use whatever incriminating evidence they might discover during this illegal search.

How many cops are going to be more than willing to accept this mere 'slap on the wrist' based on nothing more than the fact that if you randomly search most people's homes you'll find SOME violation of the law. After all, in the society we live in there are many states where finding a mere quarter ounce of pot in someone's dresser drawer would justify the illegal search. How many members of the justice system would in fact encourage police officers to illegally search whenever possible - since after all doing so only results in a slap on the wrist, which is nothing that actually threatens their job or freedoms - just to get the arrest numbers up? Within the department being a cop who has a lot of slaps on the wrist in his record would actually be held in high esteem. After all, all cops know that if they can find more reasons to make arrests during routine traffic stops the more praise they get for doing a good job. We already know that cops getting 'reprimands' on their records for police brutality don't worry about it, since the state does everything in their power to keep such records from the public and only dismiss them if their violations are caught on tape and end up getting heavily publicized.

What you're suggesting wouldn't actually be 'harder on crime'. It would be 'harder' on criminals of the state, while being considerably 'softer' on crimes committed by the state. That's a trade-ff you can make, but it's not something I would advocate for... nor would the founding fathers. It's true that if we simply allowed the state to search any citizen's property at any time and for any reason that we WOULD end up getting justice for more victims of crime in society, but at what cost? You're basically making the argument of the police state, which of course always claims that it's purpose to to keep citizens safe. The idea is that IF you're a law abiding citizen THEN you don't need protections against unreasonable searches... since such 'protections' ONLY protect criminals.

The reason we have such protections is because most people have LESS fear of any individual criminal than they do of agents of the state having unchecked power over their lives. The laws we have that restrict the state's power are just as important if not more important than the laws we have that restrict citizen's criminal activities. Just ask anyone who's ever lived in a totalitarian state.

 

[Valjean]

Give 'em all anterior lobotomies!

That would do it, I guess -- but it might not be entirely PC.
Personally, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

 

[joe1776]

You're asking the wrong questions. It should be, which is more important:

- Justice for the murdered wife or...

- Protection of EVERY SINGLE American citizens' right not to have their property rights violated by the state.

You've created a false dichotomy since you omitted the obvious third and best option. Exceptions can be made in situations like the hypothetical you created.

There's no question about it. As a general rule, with few exceptions, American citizens ought to enjoy their rights to privacy. I want that right, of course.

If law enforcement runs amok in violation of that right, I'm confident that we can find a way to put a stop to it without denying a jury the evidence that would prove the guilt of a murderer as it would in your hypothetical.

 

[Tambourine]

I think US criminals are too soft on laws.

 

[Valjean]

You've created a false dichotomy since you omitted the obvious third and best option. Exceptions can be made in situations like the hypothetical you created.

You're historically naif. Governments don't have a good record of restraint. Give them an inch --- and they'll run amok.

There's no question about it. As a general rule, with few exceptions, American citizens ought to enjoy their rights to privacy. I want that right, of course.

If law enforcement runs amok in violation of that right, I'm confident that we can find a way to put a stop to it without denying a jury the evidence that would prove the guilt of a murderer as it would in your hypothetical.

Historically, authoritarianism and repression have a way of overcoming popular dissatisfaction. In fact, the more dissatisfied, fearful and resentful the public becomes, the more they tend to embrace authoritarian leaders.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You've created a false dichotomy since you omitted the obvious third and best option. Exceptions can be made in situations like the hypothetical you created.

There's no question about it. As a general rule, with few exceptions, American citizens ought to enjoy their rights to privacy. I want that right, of course.

If law enforcement runs amok in violation of that right, I'm confident that we can find a way to put a stop to it without denying a jury the evidence that would prove the guilt of a murderer as it would in your hypothetical.

You really need to look back at our history and realize WHY the Blackstone court increased the protections citizens have against violation of their constitutional rights by agents of the state. These laws enacted to increase the penalties against the state when the state breaks the law were enacted precisely because law enforcement was running amok in violation of citizen's rights. Back then co[s only got a lap on the wrist for breaking the law, which obviously wasn't sufficient incentive for them to stop.

So it was decided that the consequences of agents of the state violating people's constitutional rights hadn't been be significant enough for the state so that'd have incentive to stop. It was like when we fine companies ten millions of dollars for dumping toxic waste in our rivers, when the company saves 100 million dollars a year by dumping illegally. There's no incentive for them to stop breaking the law. So the SCOTUS decided that if an agent of the state searched someone illegally then any evidence obtained by that search becomes invalid in a court of law. This has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of innocent citizens who get their rights violated. We could have gone another way. Instead we could pass a law that any law enforce agent who illegally searches someone automatically gets sentenced to 20 years in a maximum security prison. I suspect that would be just as effective in reducing the number of innocent citizens who get their rights violated. The point is that there MUST be a SIGNIFICANT consequence when the state violates the law.

The problem is that all your advocating for is to weaken the consequences to the state without replacing them with equally as effective incentives not to break the law. Clearly my fear of government overreach is greater than yours. I'm all for having a state run justice system for dealing with criminals in society, but ONLY if we have strict and effective laws in place to restrict the state's power.

You're more than welcome to propose an alternative to what we use now, but simply advocating that we harden the laws against criminals in society by softening the laws that keep the state's power in check is not the answer. In fact, it's a road map to living in a totalitarian police state.

 

[joe1776]

You're historically naif. Governments don't have a good record of restraint. Give them an inch --- and they'll run amok.

This is a democracy. We ARE the government.

There's no question about it. As a general rule, with few exceptions, American citizens ought to enjoy their rights to privacy. I want that right, of course.
Historically, authoritarianism and repression have a way of overcoming popular dissatisfaction. In fact, the more dissatisfied, fearful and resentful the public becomes, the more they tend to embrace authoritarian leaders.

I have no concern whatsoever that my rights to privacy would be threatened by law enforcement running amok.

I do think that the bullies on the police forces nationwide need to be weeded out by an independent agency keeping records of the complaints filed against them. Invasions of privacy should be one of the legitimate complaints.

 

[joe1776]

You really need to look back at our history and realize WHY the Blackstone court increased the protections citizens have against violation of their constitutional rights by agents of the state. These laws enacted to increase the penalties against the state when the state breaks the law were enacted precisely because law enforcement was running amok in violation of citizen's rights. Back then co[s only got a lap on the wrist for breaking the law, which obviously wasn't sufficient incentive for them to stop.

So it was decided that the consequences of agents of the state violating people's constitutional rights hadn't been be significant enough for the state so that'd have incentive to stop. It was like when we fine companies ten millions of dollars for dumping toxic waste in our rivers, when the company saves 100 million dollars a year by dumping illegally. There's no incentive for them to stop breaking the law. So the SCOTUS decided that if an agent of the state searched someone illegally then any evidence obtained by that search becomes invalid in a court of law. This has resulted in a significant decrease in the number of innocent citizens who get their rights violated. We could have gone another way. Instead we could pass a law that any law enforce agent who illegally searches someone automatically gets sentenced to 20 years in a maximum security prison. I suspect that would be just as effective in reducing the number of innocent citizens who get their rights violated. The point is that there MUST be a SIGNIFICANT consequence when the state violates the law.

The problem is that all your advocating for is to weaken the consequences to the state without replacing them with equally as effective incentives not to break the law. Clearly my fear of government overreach is greater than yours. I'm all for having a state run justice system for dealing with criminals in society, but ONLY if we have strict and effective laws in place to restrict the state's power.

You're more than welcome to propose an alternative to what we use now, but simply advocating that we harden the laws against criminals in society by softening the laws that keep the state's power in check is not the answer. In fact, it's a road map to living in a totalitarian police state.

You really think that dumping the Blackstone bias would lead to 40,000 independent police departments collaborating to take over the country?

I doubt it, but I do think we need independent oversight of the police departments.

Rape, assault, murder, child molestation --- I'm more concerned with the harm done by violent criminals than I am with the harm done by law enforcement personnel who screw up.

I don't want criminals to skate free because someone in law enforcement screwed up. The screw up can be punished with suspensions and firing without allowing the criminal to skate free on a serious offense.

 

[Valjean]

This is a democracy. We ARE the government.

Would this were really true. If this were a democracy you'd be right, but it's not. It's more an oligarchy. We don't pick our candidates, and the working classes have little or no influence on policy.

I have no concern whatsoever that my rights to privacy would be threatened by law enforcement running amok.

Big Brother already tracks your every post and movement, but your local police aren't usually privy to it. What worries me about the police is their belligerence and imperiousness; their intolerance of disorder or lack of respect.

I do think that the bullies on the police forces nationwide need to be weeded out by an independent agency keeping records of the complaints filed against them. Invasions of privacy should be one of the legitimate complaints.

The problem is systemic. Police are trained like a military unit. Nobody's likely to step in when an officer gets out of line, and misconduct is frequently swept under the rug. That makes the whole force a collective bad apple.