A credible case can be made that the way it was *supposed* to work here is that before govt can do you any significant harm (eg, incarceration, forfeiture, any non-trivial financial penalty) it has to go to trial and get a jury verdict. The implications of that are staggering. /1
First, trials are expensive, inconvenient, and uncertain. It’s basically impossible to impose any kind of punishment/penalty on a mass scale if every case has to go to trial. This means govt has to focus on the small # of truly bad people rather than mere rule-breakers. /2
Second, people are going to get sick of being called for jury duty to adjudicate ticky-tacky BS like low-level drug sales and will send a message to prosecutors and legislators to knock it off. Like in this story: nola.com/news/courts/ar… /3
Third, people will get a chance to explain and contextualize their conduct to a group of neighbors, who in at least some cases are MUCH more likely to sympathize than some captured sycophant of an administrative law judge. /4
Finally (for now), the more often they serve on juries, the more people will learn the various ways govt tries to cheat its way around a fair adjudicative process such as threatening people with massively disproportionate harms if they refuse to waive their right to a trial. /5
This final point may be the most important: Widespread realization that govt cheats relentlessly in adjudicative proceedings—using captured in-house “judges,” imposing massive trial penalties, demanding lifetime gag orders as a condition of settlement, etc.—would radically /6
Reset the entire calculus of govt-vs-citizen litigation. Jurors would quickly learn what kinds of govt chicanery to look out for and would protect fellow citizens from it. Govt would have to radically change its litigation tactics to avoid censure. “Inconceivable!” you say? /7
Not to the Founders. They went to extraordinary lengths to put citizen participation at the very heart of the administration of criminal justice. So why not try their plan? We might even like it. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've been mocking the "Four Seasons" press conference pretty mercilessly today. Here's why:
1. It's hilarious. Your heart would have to be made of stone not to laugh at the spectacle of a defeated administration proclaiming a massive conspiracy to steal the election in the parking lot of a landscaping company sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop.
2. I'm sick of it. Sick of the lies, the cruelty, the malice, and most of all the relentless polarizing by a president who panders to the basest of his base, dehumanizes his opponents, cozies up to dictators, and denigrates the very institutions that sustain us.
I would strongly urge conservatives who wish to maintain their credibility in the criminal justice space to stop misrepresenting what happened in the Breonna Taylor case:
1. The cops DID have a no-knock warrant. This is undisputed.
2. While it appears they knocked, it is hotly disputed whether they announced themselves as police.
3. If they did announce, it is highly likely based on the totality of circumstances, that they knocked-announced-and-deployed-the-battering-ram all at once, which is an extremely common technique and completely defeats the purpose of the knock-and-announce rule.
Empirically unsupported, factually false, and cynically self-serving. Know who’s *actually* on the hook for lawsuits against cops? Not cops—but we the taxpayers. nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-…
In 2013, I wrote a book in which I argued that SCOTUS was wrong to treat the Constitution as a fundamentally amoral document that authorizes the govt to engage in a broad array of immoral conduct, such as locking people up for no good reason. /1 amazon.com/Terms-Engageme…
The govt has embraced that judicial misconception with gusto and behaves wildly immorally in any number of areas, but none more viciously—and inexcusably—than the so-called criminal justice system. I think part of what we’re seeing in Portland /2
Is the govt’s inability to claim the moral high ground with any credibility. They lost that opportunity when they embraced the judiciary’s tacit invitation to say “Immoral-but-legal—sucks to be you!” The govt has sowed the wind with so many morally indefensible policies. /3
Whether to convict and punish someone is an inherently political as well as legal question. One of the many reasons our CJ system cannot accurately described as well-functioning is because judges and prosecutors have succeeded in making it a purely legal one. Disastrously.
If modern jurors debated the legitimacy of various criminal laws and the justness of applying a particular law to a particular D, the way they did at the Founding, charging decisions would look way different aned we almost certainly wouldn't have mass incaceration.
Defenders of the status quo claim Founding-era-informed juries (who know consequences for D if they convict and that they have the power/duty to acquit against the evidence to avoid an unjust conviction) would be a disaster. And I'm like, "You mean a BIGGER disaster?" Doubtful.
A polite but urgent note to my judge-friends: The nation’s premier law-enforcement agency has effectively admitted that it coerced one of the most powerful men on the planet into pleading guilty to a crime it now says he didn’t commit. This is happening *regularly* on YOUR watch.