[HN Gopher] In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poo...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       In Jail Without a Lawyer: How a Texas Town Fails Poor Defendants
        
       Author : ceejayoz
       Score  : 102 points
       Date   : 2025-03-25 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
        
       | josefritzishere wrote:
       | Texas is not known as a bastion of civil rights.
        
         | jp191919 wrote:
         | Depends on the civil rights in question. Champion of some, not
         | so much on others.
        
           | bsder wrote:
           | Wait until minorities start open carrying lots of guns.
           | 
           | That's how California wound up with gun control under Saint
           | Reagan (hack ... spit).
        
       | nadermx wrote:
       | "Two men were released after The Times asked about them, half a
       | year after their sentences had been completed."
       | 
       | Horrific. This egregious human rights violation is something
       | you'd think you read about in a developing nation, not a
       | developed nation.
        
         | kurthr wrote:
         | Sounds really expensive for the municipality.
         | 
         | The local jailers are probably doing well, though sticking it
         | to the local rubes who support them.
        
           | CobrastanJorji wrote:
           | Many people are happy to spend money to hurt members of out-
           | groups.
        
           | ceejayoz wrote:
           | If you or I did the same thing, we'd be in jail shortly for
           | kidnapping and false imprisonment. Here, at best, it just
           | means the local taxpayers pay a settlement.
        
         | jMyles wrote:
         | Developing nations don't have the funds for elaborate systems
         | of slavery such as incarceration. Slavery in developing nations
         | is usually managed by an imperial colonizer.
        
           | wtcactus wrote:
           | Colonization ended 50 years ago and yet, there were never as
           | many slaves in the world as there are today.
           | 
           | There are more than 40 million people enslaved now.
           | 
           | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Slavery_Index
        
             | jMyles wrote:
             | Colonization has only ended in express terms. In many parts
             | of the world, including essentially all of the developing
             | nations where slavery has expanded in the past half-
             | century, the dominant economic activity are forms of
             | extraction at the behest either multinationals, OPEC,
             | China, or USA.
        
             | saghm wrote:
             | My immediate thought when reading this was that the number
             | of people is much higher today than 50 years ago, but
             | before my kneejerk reaction I decided to check the math.
             | Assuming the results of a quick google can be trusted, we
             | have around 4 billion more people today than 50 years ago,
             | which means that entire percent of the population growth in
             | the past 50 years are people in slavery. That's
             | staggeringly higher than I would have estimated before
             | reading any of this.
        
           | reliabilityguy wrote:
           | > Slavery in developing nations is usually managed by an
           | imperial colonizer.
           | 
           | Please, read this wiki article:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
           | 
           | Slavery was not invented by "colonizers". There are plenty of
           | examples of slavery, where no conquest had happened at all,
           | e.g., peonage.
        
           | milesrout wrote:
           | Slavery has existed for all of human history, and is sadly
           | the natural state of things. It was stamped out by the
           | British empire, a colonising power, because of the relentless
           | campaigning of Christian moralists.
           | 
           | Imprisonment is indeed a newer development. In the past they
           | chopped off your hand and let fate deal with you, or they
           | just executed you. Nobody was going to feed some peasant who
           | couldn't even work. Imprisonment was for aristocrats and
           | their children, not for criminals.
        
             | Terr_ wrote:
             | > is sadly the natural state of things
             | 
             | Sadly, the _even-more-natural_ state of things involves the
             | total extinction of all known forms of life and nothing but
             | the cold vacuum of space.
             | 
             | So we should be very careful not to equate that particular
             | kind of "natural" with other concepts like "unavoidable" or
             | "acceptable".
        
               | milesrout wrote:
               | My message was correcting ahistorical misinformation, not
               | talking about what is good or bad or acceptable.
        
             | ceejayoz wrote:
             | > Imprisonment is indeed a newer development.
             | 
             | Ancient Greece and Rome are "newer"?
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamertine_Prison was built in
             | the 7th century _BC_.
        
               | geodel wrote:
               | I mean those were just centers for vigorous debates on
               | natural philosophy :-)
        
               | milesrout wrote:
               | The linked article says:
               | 
               | >Imprisonment was not a sentence under Roman statutory
               | law,[2] though detention is mentioned in the Twelve
               | Tables and throughout the Digest.[3] "Detention",
               | however, includes debt bondage in the early Republic;[4]
               | the wearing of chains (vincula publica), mainly for
               | slaves; and during the Imperial era a sentence of hard
               | labor at the mills, mines or quarries.[5] Slaves or
               | lower-status citizens sentenced to hard labor were held
               | in prison camps.[6]
               | 
               | >Incarceration (publica custodia) in facilities such as
               | the Tullianum was intended to be a temporary measure
               | prior to trial or execution; abuses of this principle
               | occurred but were officially censured.[7] Located near
               | the law courts, the Tullianum was used as a jail or
               | holding cell for short periods before executions and as a
               | site for executions.
               | 
               | So yes, as I said, imprisonment is a newer development.
               | Holding people temporarily is jailing. Imprisonment, in
               | the "sentenced to prison for a period of time or
               | indefinitely" is a modern idea. It was considered
               | barbaric by some cultures historically, but it also was
               | just not viable. There was a small surplus of food, which
               | was for the aristocracy to siphon off the top (ostensibly
               | to fund the defence of the realm), not for feeding common
               | criminals.
        
               | ceejayoz wrote:
               | The article goes on to say:
               | 
               | > In general, long-term incarceration was more widely
               | practiced in the later Empire, and from the 4th century,
               | under Christian rule...
               | 
               | I don't consider that recent, either.
               | 
               | (Nor do I really think "prison camp", "sentenced to hard
               | labor", and "debt bondage" are all that meaningfully
               | different from imprisonment.)
        
               | jMyles wrote:
               | Please - and I ask this with calmness and a sincere
               | urging:
               | 
               | Stop trying to make incarceration seem like a long-
               | running historical phenomenon. It is profit-driven
               | propaganda, the promulgation of which began promptly in
               | 1865.
               | 
               | Incarceration, in the Western legal tradition, is very
               | new in relative terms, and its growth has been
               | overwhelmingly the result of the experience of the USA
               | transforming slavery into something marginally more
               | politically acceptable.
               | 
               | You probably already know this, given your knowledge of
               | the history, but some plantations, such as Angola, never
               | even bothered closing down; they just transformed into
               | penitentiaries and continued business as usual. The 13th
               | amendment to the constitution, against the better
               | judgment of many objectors, is specifically worded to
               | facilitate this transformation.
               | 
               | Incarceration is not a legal tradition. It is a way to
               | shoehorn slavery economics into one.
        
         | almostgotcaught wrote:
         | > Horrific. This egregious human rights violation is something
         | you'd think you read about in a developing nation, not a
         | developed nation.
         | 
         | bruh you have no idea. seriously. the "justice system" in the
         | US should not be called a justice system, but a slavery and
         | penal system:
         | 
         | > Thirteenth Amendment, Section 1:
         | 
         | > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, _except as a
         | punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
         | convicted_ , shall exist within the States, or any place
         | subject to their jurisdiction.
         | 
         | the US also has private prisons. do you understand? e.g., there
         | are about 1000 prisoners in california that are also
         | firefighters _getting paid $10 a day_. do you think they _cost_
         | $10 a day to california?
         | 
         | EDIT: I was possibly mistaken about this example specifically
         | (see below) but only as of 2022-2023 (the fire fighters program
         | has been around for much longer than 2022-2023). there are many
         | other examples; if you've ever seen prisoners stamping license
         | plates in a movie, the allusion is exactly to this kind of
         | "work":
         | 
         | https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/national-veri...
         | 
         | damning pull quote:
         | 
         | > Two out of three people incarcerated in state and federal
         | prisons are also workers, the American Civil Liberties Union
         | (ACLU) estimated in a June 2022 report.
        
           | potato3732842 wrote:
           | It's also a "wealth transfer from people not part of the
           | system to people who are" system.
        
             | almostgotcaught wrote:
             | it's lots of gross things that many educated americans
             | refuse to engage with/consider and rather deny as "behind
             | us".
        
           | dragonwriter wrote:
           | > the US also has private prisons. do you understand? e.g.,
           | there are about 1000 prisoners in california that are also
           | firefighters getting paid $10 a day.
           | 
           | "E.g." is is misused here: California prison firefighters are
           | not an example of private prisons (California does not employ
           | private prisons.)
           | 
           | > do you think they cost $10 a day to california?
           | 
           | Well, yeah, they are state prisoners in state prisons, whos
           | do you think is paying the $10/day to the prisoners?
        
             | decimalenough wrote:
             | The previous poster's point is, I presume, that the upkeep
             | of a prisoner costs a hell of a lot more than $10/day.
             | Specifically, the California Dept of Corrections quotes
             | $133,000/year.
             | 
             | https://www.lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost
        
               | Terr_ wrote:
               | I'd have less of a problem with prisoners being paid a
               | pittance for helping out if it weren't for how the
               | spending-side of prison commissaries [0] and phone calls
               | [1] are often unconscionably overpriced.
               | 
               | [0] https://theappeal.org/locked-in-priced-out-how-much-
               | prison-c...
               | 
               | [1] https://www.vera.org/news/the-fcc-is-capping-
               | outrageous-pris...
        
             | almostgotcaught wrote:
             | you're partially right (i was mistaken) and only as of very
             | very recently:
             | 
             | https://www.thepomonan.com/news/2023/10/2/7investigative-
             | cal...
             | 
             | > AB32 included exemptions which allowed private prisons to
             | focus on other profitable "community corrections" programs,
             | such as day reporting centers, counseling facilities,
             | halfway houses, rehabilitation centers, medical offices,
             | and mental health facilities. Currently, these exemptions
             | are worth around $200 million a year. Included are
             | locations that mimic detention facilities and are run by
             | organizations that also run private prisons in California.
             | 
             | https://www.ilrc.org/biden-administration-partners-
             | private-p...
             | 
             | > 09/26/2022
             | 
             | > Pasadena, CA - Today, an en banc 11-judge panel of the
             | Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that GEO could block
             | California's AB 32 (People not Profit, Bonta) from going
             | into effect for the duration of the lawsuit, pending
             | further review from District Court. AB 32 is a state law
             | signed in 2019 which banned private prisons and private
             | immigration detention centers in the state.
             | 
             | I do not know if this applies to the Conservation (Fire)
             | Camp Program
        
         | alistairSH wrote:
         | _something you 'd think you read about in a developing nation,
         | not a developed nation._
         | 
         | Sadly, we have become one of the shit-hole nations Trump loves
         | to rant about. And we (the voting public) have been 100%
         | complicit.
        
         | simpaticoder wrote:
         | _> This egregious human rights violation is something you 'd
         | think you read about in a developing nation, not a developed
         | nation._
         | 
         | Yes, but a note of hope. "The future is unevenly distributed"
         | cuts both ways, the good and the bad. At least we _know_ about
         | some of the atrocities happening here, and good that we haven
         | 't been warn down and we still recognize them as such. One tip
         | to deal with a firehose of bad news: rank it based on physical
         | proximity. That way you won't be overwhelmed and lose
         | perspective. "Life is suffering" as the Buddhists say. I
         | believe that if you could empathize with even 1% of the
         | suffering of humans _this moment_ you would be overwhelmed.
         | Egregious failures of the state, like in the OP 's piece, must
         | ultimately be solved by those that caused it. Our desire to
         | swoop in and fix other people's problems needs appropriate
         | caution. Consider the lessons of US intervention in the Somali
         | Civil War in the 90's.
        
         | IsTom wrote:
         | Another reason why "the richest third-world nation" monicker
         | holds.
        
       | exhilaration wrote:
       | Gift link: https://nyti.ms/421I5Ox
        
       | givemeethekeys wrote:
       | Standing out in any way in a small, socially conservative
       | community can have some pretty terrible consequences.
        
         | Zigurd wrote:
         | Can confirm. A friend of mine got death threats for reading the
         | constitution aloud on the steps of town hall. This was not in
         | Alabama. It was in the Massachusetts hill towns.
        
       | crooked-v wrote:
       | Merely "fails"? That sounds like apologetic underemphasis to me,
       | like so many other Times stories. The system described is more
       | like active oppression.
        
         | potato3732842 wrote:
         | Half of the country will do olympic level mental gymnastics to
         | justify government misdeeds so long as those misdeeds happen
         | from behind a desk and the other half will do the same if those
         | misdeeds happen at the hands of someone with a badge and a gun.
         | 
         | Doesn't surprise me that a county that has both problems this
         | exists somewhere.
        
         | DistractionRect wrote:
         | It's amazing how understated some parts are. Like they just
         | casually mention
         | 
         | > Like most Texas county judges, he does not have a law degree.
         | 
         | I'm sorry, what? Anyone off the street can be a judge? That one
         | line begs soo many questions, and at least some outrage, which
         | is simply glossed over.
         | 
         | Doing my own research, I guess I see why it's glossed over,
         | because apparently this isn't uncommon - a quick search says
         | that only 28 states require judges presiding over misdemeanors
         | have a law degree. In 14 of the remaining 22, you can request a
         | new trial from a lawyer-judge if you receive a jail sentence
         | from a non lawyer-judge.
         | 
         | I take it for granted, to me it's common sense, that a judge
         | should a law degree. I mean, how can one preside over and act
         | as arbiter in legal matters without knowing the law?
        
         | frakkingcylons wrote:
         | It's the appropriate language for a news organization. Making
         | the language more charged doesn't change the facts that they
         | are presenting and it's what I want as a subscriber.
        
       | selimthegrim wrote:
       | It is not uncommon in certain rural Louisiana towns to have the
       | local sheriffs/police make up some traffic offense and have you
       | sit in the local jail for a weekend because the judge isn't going
       | to show up until Monday if they don't like you being around there
       | as an outsider/activist.
        
         | _DeadFred_ wrote:
         | Or just don't like you and want you to lose your job when you
         | don't show up to work Monday.
        
       | AngryData wrote:
       | Anyone who has ever dealt with the US justice system as just some
       | regular bloke knows it is broken. 90% of it is about extorting
       | the population for funding for the courts and cops. If you can't
       | afford a lawyer, they will provide you with a joke. And if you
       | can afford a lawyer, now its just a question if you are willing
       | to spend more on your lawyer than the state is hoping to extort
       | from you. If you are, you will get off no problem, if you aren't
       | or can't, most courts are going to try and screw you over. Oh
       | whats that, you want to actually fight your charges in court? Now
       | you better not lose because you are on the hook for all of the
       | money the court wants to believe it cost them to prosecute you.
       | Oh you don't want to risk that and just settle for whatever minor
       | fine the law says you might owe? Don't worry, the courts will
       | still fuck you with the addition in mandatory minimum court fees,
       | additional fees and fines not stipulated under the law you broke,
       | inflated "programs" that they get kickbacks from, and an even
       | better excuse for cops in the future to try and screw you over by
       | painting you as some wanton criminal.
       | 
       | Just like healthcare, US justice is only for people with money.
        
         | almostgotcaught wrote:
         | > Anyone who has ever dealt with the US justice system as just
         | some regular bloke knows it is broken.
         | 
         | and just like re healthcare, this is the rub of communicating
         | about this: 90% (to pick a random number out of thin air) of
         | hn's target demo has had perfect/sheltered lives and has never
         | come into contact with the "law". so they believe all the
         | political and institutional rhetoric around it.
         | 
         | the other 10% know it's a myth but fail to be able to convince
         | the 90% because it would cause deep cognitive dissonance to
         | accept that the US is deeply deeply inequitable and unfair and
         | that it's not accidental but systematic. when i was younger i
         | was in jail a handful of times (not prison thankfully). it's
         | impossible to explain to someone how fucked up it is that's
         | never experienced it. i stopped talking about the "justice
         | system" a long time ago to co-workers/friends/etc and i don't
         | tell anyone about my experience (only my wife knows).
        
           | sorcerer-mar wrote:
           | I think the most inconvenient thing is actually that it's
           | both (largely) accidental _and_ systematic.
           | 
           | If you go looking for the source of "evil" breaking these
           | systems, you'll surely find a few bad folks purposely fucking
           | it up, but removing them is almost certainly not going to fix
           | anything. The vast majority of these systems' behavior (good
           | or bad) is effectively not driven by individuals whatsoever.
        
             | almostgotcaught wrote:
             | i wish people, before they commented on really really
             | serious things, did a bit of reflection.
             | 
             | > effectively not driven by individuals whatsoever
             | 
             | the agency of individuals in totalitarian/authoritarian
             | institutions has been examined/analyzed/written about at
             | enormous length since the rise of fascism in the early
             | 1900s. the short answer is you're wrong but i'm not going
             | to try to convince you (you have to want to learn to be
             | receptive). instead i recommend a book:
             | 
             | https://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Banality-
             | Penguin-C...
             | 
             | EDIT: i'm being rate limited. to the guy below
             | 
             | > how even a system full of good intentions
             | 
             | you're just proving all of my points - you just can't
             | fathom that the laws really were written with immoral
             | intentions because "the law" is sacrosanct for you.
             | 
             | i note again: the 13th amendment abolished slavery _except
             | for in prisons_. it 's written explicitly in section 1 (no
             | bad faith interpretation needed). please discuss for me the
             | "good intentions" therein.
        
               | sorcerer-mar wrote:
               | The vast majority of bad outcomes of big systems are not
               | because they're principally _designed for evil_ and just
               | lacking a few dissenters.
               | 
               | Most systems today are intended to produce outcomes that
               | most people agree would be good, and they're full of
               | people trying to achieve those outcomes, and yet reliably
               | failing to produce them.
               | 
               | There have been books written about this topic as well,
               | but it's not as flashy as comparing "every system that
               | produces some bad results" to actual Nazis, I have to
               | admit.
        
               | TimorousBestie wrote:
               | Having it read it again just last year, I'd like to
               | emphasize _Eichmann in Jerusalem_ does support the point
               | being made here.
        
             | potato3732842 wrote:
             | If good people can't run the system right the system is
             | broken and good people ought to support its reform or
             | replacement.
        
               | sorcerer-mar wrote:
               | Of course! If the codebase gets non-performant or hard to
               | maintain, all you have to do is rewrite it to be not-
               | that.
               | 
               | Typically makes sense to fire anyone who wrote the broken
               | version too, just to get a fresh set of eyes on it.
               | 
               | Not sure why there's any non-performant or unmaintainable
               | code in light of this fact.
        
               | psd1 wrote:
               | Irony noted, but I think it's rare for the horrors of a
               | codebase to be deliberately inflicted for self-enrichment
               | or cruelty.
        
               | askvictor wrote:
               | I appreciate the irony, but it doesn't have to be that
               | drastic. In Australia we have the Law Reform Commission,
               | which looks to gradually make laws better. Is the legal
               | system perfect? Far from it. Does it get political? All
               | the time. Is it getting better? I would argue yes,
               | slowly.
               | 
               | To your analogy, it's possible to incrementally improve a
               | code base. It's also possible to stop it getting worse.
        
               | sorcerer-mar wrote:
               | Right, which no one (to my knowledge) is opposed to.
        
             | askvictor wrote:
             | > you'll surely find a few bad folks purposely fucking it
             | up, but removing them is almost certainly not going to fix
             | anything
             | 
             | So you you think, without those few bad folks, these
             | systems would not tend to break, or that these few bad
             | folks are not being challenged? I.e. do you think these few
             | bad folks are completely inconsequential at a systemic
             | level?
        
               | sorcerer-mar wrote:
               | > do you think these few bad folks are completely
               | inconsequential at a systemic level?
               | 
               | Pretty much yes, and so are the good ones. Such is the
               | nature of systems. A thing becomes visible as and labeled
               | as "a system" only after it's quite stable and resilient,
               | i.e. after it has developed effective responses to common
               | "attacks" (deliberate or otherwise). Achieving
               | fungibility of 99.9% of individual humans is like
               | objective #1 and the systems that fail to achieve it
               | don't exist long enough to be problematic.
        
             | Zigurd wrote:
             | Dirty and thuggish cops are way more common than Americans
             | think. The more benign form is detail and overtime fraud.
             | But I'd bet the dollar amount easily rivals property crime
             | value in your town.
             | 
             | Theft and fraud in businesses is more common than software
             | people think. Kickbacks to purchasing managers, for
             | example. You're less likely to encounter this than a
             | casually dirty cop, but it's out there.
        
             | stult wrote:
             | There's a long running historiographical debate about the
             | relative influence individuals have over the ultimate
             | course of historical events compared to systemic factors
             | 
             | For many years, it was popular (particularly in revisionist
             | circles) almost entirely to deny individual agency and to
             | rely instead exclusively on systemic arguments which
             | highlighted the power of geography, ecology, culture,
             | technology, and other complex systems to shape human
             | events. That revisionist approach emerged partially in
             | reaction to the near universal overreliance of prior
             | generations of historians on the so-called "Great Man"
             | theory of history, which assumes events are largely
             | attributable to the decisions of a select group of
             | politically powerful individuals. Nearly all of those
             | individuals happened to be white, male, and wealthy, and
             | thus Great Man history suffered not only from blindness to
             | systemic factors that can shape events, but also to the
             | experiences, contributions, and agency of anyone who was
             | not rich, not white, not a man, or even simply not
             | politically powerful enough to count. In other words, they
             | ignore nearly everyone who has ever lived.
             | 
             | Although academic history has long since moved away from
             | the Great Man theory, it remains a popular trope of low
             | quality popular history books, and increasingly it has
             | become clear that purely systemic, revisionist approaches
             | with no consideration for the effects of individual actors
             | are also inadequate to explain historical events.
             | 
             | Sometimes systems are more powerful than people, and no
             | amount of good will or effort is going to fix a problem.
             | The Vikings abandoned Greenland during the Little Ice Age
             | because they had no way of controlling the climate or
             | adapting efficiently to the changes. The climate system was
             | more powerful than any individual Norse settler or group of
             | settlers could ever hope to be.
             | 
             | Sometimes systems are weaker than people, and leaders can
             | bend them to their will. After nearly 1000 years of
             | independence from secular authority and mostly uncontested
             | religious domination in England, the Catholic Church in the
             | 16th century formed an incredibly powerful institutional
             | system of religious control built on vast endowments of
             | land. It was by and large extremely popular with the common
             | people and historically served a critical role in
             | bolstering the king's position by promoting a respect for
             | hierarchy that naturally encompassed both their own
             | elevated status as priests and the position of secular
             | authoritarian rulers, who ruled as God's representative on
             | Earth. Despite the Church's enduring local popularity, its
             | immense wealth, its deep connections with the broader
             | Christian world, and the powerful hold fear of
             | excommunication and damnation had on most Christians, King
             | Henry VIII managed to completely transform the
             | institutional, legal, and property-managing system of the
             | medieval English Catholic Church, sundering it entirely
             | from Rome, depriving it of essentially all of its land
             | holdings, and subordinating its institutions entirely to
             | royal authority. And he accomplished this in a shockingly
             | short period of time, only around a decade.
             | 
             | Why did Henry decide to throw his lot in with the
             | Reformation? Was it because he saw the injustice of monks,
             | priests, and friars siphoning off so much of his subjects'
             | wealth to Rome simply to subsidize the already luxurious
             | and decidedly un-Christian lifestyle enjoyed by the pope?
             | Not at all, in fact in the years before his marriage to
             | Katherine of Aragon soured, he wrote a book defending the
             | pope, who promptly named the king Defender of the Faith in
             | gratitude and recognition of his scholastic achievement.
             | Did Henry instead recognize an opportunity to enrich
             | himself? Probably not, the evidence suggests he wasn't that
             | savvy about money, but luckily for him, he had Cromwell to
             | take care of the pounds and the pennies. Ultimately, he
             | just needed a divorce. Because if he failed to produce an
             | heir, the danger of civil war would be intolerable, and
             | Katherine was clearly beyond her childbearing years. But
             | the pope wouldn't give him one, and Henry was a raging
             | narcissist willing to burst through any boundary in service
             | of his own ego, even risking his soul to break from Rome.
             | 
             | So individual idiosyncrasies can also affect the course of
             | events, we can't just look at systems, and we can't just
             | look at individuals, we need systems too. The relative
             | influence of each over how a complex institution like a
             | justice system develops is a highly contingent and fact-
             | specific analysis. Sometimes the climate can push winters
             | to be too cold even for the hardiest settlers. Sometimes an
             | entire nation's centuries-long, enduring religious beliefs
             | and ideologies can depend solely on the whims (and lust) of
             | a single egotistical dictator. And sometimes when such a
             | basic function is this messed up, you might actually find
             | that there are indeed a limited number of individuals
             | responsible, and that replacing them with competent or less
             | malicious individuals will actually solve the problem.
             | 
             | That's the trick though, and where the systemic and
             | individual-focused explanatory variables start to bleed
             | into each other. If it is systematically impossible to find
             | good people to staff these institutions, then yes merely
             | swapping out individuals will not fix the situation because
             | by definition you are swapping out bad people for other bad
             | people. However, I seriously doubt that it is impossible to
             | do so in this case, because even if the US justice system
             | is messed up and broken, this is about the most messed up
             | and broken that it gets. I think it's fair to say that
             | 99.999% of the country does not experience systemic justice
             | problems to the same extent as Maverick County, which is
             | why so many people are reacting to this story with
             | justifiable shock. So even assuming _ad arguendo_ that it
             | is systemically impossible to find truly _good_ people to
             | work in law enforcement or the judicial system, we know it
             | 's at least possible to find _better_ people than they have
             | in Maverick County.
        
           | newZWhoDis wrote:
           | It sounds like... you did get caught?
        
           | psd1 wrote:
           | Absolutely flabbergasted in the canteen one day when my
           | colleague said, unironically, "well, if they stop you, you
           | were probably doing _something_"...
           | 
           | White South African
           | 
           | Yes, working eyeballs
        
           | SauciestGNU wrote:
           | Forget actual legal culpability, the range of outcomes in the
           | American legal system ranges from cops killing you at worst,
           | to the stacked legal system making you wish they had _only_
           | killed you at best.
        
           | redczar wrote:
           | Part of the problem as I see it is that we Americans are
           | incredibly vengeful and seek retribution. We are particularly
           | incensed when someone poorer (or otherwise different than us)
           | seemingly gets a "light sentence".
        
         | kubb wrote:
         | Is this where the whole Europe bashing on social media comes
         | from? US needing to believe that a better society, rule of law,
         | social services isn't real in Europe and impossible in general?
        
           | SauciestGNU wrote:
           | Not only that, but it explains the disdain for Europe in the
           | current American government. European society proves that
           | Americans could have true freedom and quality of life if it
           | weren't for corporations and oligarchs effectively owning our
           | government. Fascists hate a counterexample.
        
             | ranger_danger wrote:
             | Seems like "they hate us for our freedom!" has done a
             | complete 180 as of late.
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | My understanding is the root of the evil is in our
         | overcriminalisation of day to day life. Is this accurate? Or
         | would reducing the prison population through reduced sentencing
         | not alleviate the worst of the problems?
         | 
         | (Reduced sentencing loads mean you can raise standards for
         | court-appointed counsel, possibly ban plea deals, _et cetera_.)
        
           | BrenBarn wrote:
           | I think it is less to with "overcriminalization" in the sense
           | of legislation, and more to do with the enforcement process.
           | In some sense I think we need _more_ criminalization, in that
           | the types of malfeasance described in the article (e.g.,
           | keeping people imprisoned beyond their sentence, failing to
           | provide an attorney, etc.) should result in long jail
           | sentences for the officials who perpetrated them. The problem
           | is that in the US we have become accustomed to an enormous
           | gap between the law and its implementation.
        
       | Avshalom wrote:
       | The purpose of a system is what it does.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-25 23:02 UTC)