Courts, Jury's and Plea Bargains, The bastardization of the legal system

[tod evans]

Over the last couple of months I've noticed quite a few people advocating the sanctity of our jury system.

This is a good thing, it means that folks still believe that the legal system can work as it was intended.

Reality however is that more than 90% of people accused of a crime are sentenced by the prosecutor without ever setting foot in front of a jury.

Our legal system has been twisted and manipulated over the years to the point that if a person accused of a crime tries to exercise his right to a trial by jury he is assured of financial ruin and most likely loss of freedom for the remainder of his life.

Like most issues with government there isn't a simple solution to a complex problem.....Legislators have enacted so many laws over the years that just about anyone anywhere may be brought up on charges.. keep this in mind as I ramble.

Cops........cops decide who is committing what crime, they document the criminal behavior arrest the citizen and detain him while the prosecuting attorney prepares his case in the name of "the people".

Now the prosecutor in collusion with the legislators attach every conceivable breach of law to the indictment. There is a twisted logic in this exercise, first when presented with the indictment the accused is flabbergasted by the potential sentence he is facing......Second if the accused does decide to exert his right to a trial by jury the prosecutor and cops can justify the prosecution by citing the laundry list of violations as proof of criminal behavior.

So we have a person accused of a "crime" imprisoned faced with a list of charges that may legally be brought against him....The jury of "his peers" is no where in sight, in fact the likelihood of the accused speaking to anyone versed in the legality of the charges waged against him for less than $250.00hr is pretty slim.....Sure he can have a court appointed attorney, one who draws his check from the same disbursement officer as the prosecutor and the cops.

The fellow accused of criminal behavior is now faced with some really difficult choices, should he try to "bond out"? If he does, does that mean he has the money to retain competent counsel? Does he try to defend himself against a laundry list of additional charges attached to the actual "crime" either by himself or with a "court appointed attorney"? Or does he acquiesce and accept a "plea-bargain" from the prosecutor?

Due to the structure of the court system most people accused of a crime logically choose to lessen their exposure to the sanctions of a court and forego their right to a jury.

It is due to this process that we have such wonderful things happening like child molesters serving less than 60 months, murders serving less than 84 months while others are serving 240 months for growing pot. People who embezzle millions serve minimal time while others who steal food are sentenced to years.

I don't have any solutions....The constitution grants each of us the right to be judged by a jury of our peers but for heavens sake very few are.

What we have isn't working and obviously more legislation isn't the answer.........Got any ideas?

[Travlyr]

Got any ideas?
First, End the Fed.
Second, enforce Article VI of the Constitution

Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Third, invalidate all laws in conflict with the constitution.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”
Fourth, teach the constitution as the supreme law of the land and encourage participation at all levels of government as a civic duty rather than a lifetime career.
Amend the Constitution as necessary.

[Acala]

The first problem is that so much conduct is illegal that should not be illegal.

The second problem is that the lawyer monopoly on representing people in court needs to be broken.

The third problem is the political and financial motivations of prosecutors - prosecutors should be prohibited from ever holding any other public office or every copyrighting any literary work based on their actions as prosecutor.

The fourth problem is the use of testimony from paid informants - it should be excluded from consideration in the issuance of warrants and excluded from trial.

The fifth problem is police misconduct - penalties for purjury should be MORE severe for cops and include immediate dismissal and
loss of pension.

The sixth problem is having a system based on punishment (which rarely works) rather than restitution. The only people who should be removed from society are those who have been proven to be a deadly threat or incorrigible repeat offenders. Everyone else should be able to pay the restitution and the fees and go free.

If you take care of those problems, the system would be much better.

Plea bargaining itself is efficient. It is the rest of the system that causes it to be abused.

[tod evans]

And here we have the Supreme Court weighing in;

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/justice/scotus-plea-bargains/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

The way I read the article, this decision is an attempt to gain more convictions without jury trials.

Public defenders (as well as paid lawyers) are encouraged to promote "plea bargains" and could be held accountable under law if they don't.

Of course any "good" lawyer is required to advise his client of all legal options available to him, what is reprehensible is the fact that cops are effectively permitted to sentence the accused without trial.

If the accused opts for a trial his sentence is 4-10 times as that offered in a plea effectively negating his right to a trial by jury.




Washington (CNN) -- A deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that criminal defendants who receive inadequate legal advice on pretrial plea bargains can have their sentences overturned, equating that with an unconstitutional and ineffective assistance of counsel.
The separate 5-4 decisions in a pair of cases from Michigan and Missouri will have a huge, immediate impact on the 97% of federal convictions and 94% of state convictions that stem from guilty pleas.
"This court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, joining four of his more liberal colleagues. "When the defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires."
In a rare oral dissent delivered from the bench, Justice Antonin Scalia called the majority decision "absurd" and "unheard-of."
In unusual detail, the opinion lays out specific guidelines to defense counsel, saying they must relay plea bargain offers from the prosecution, regardless whether the lawyer believes them to be proper.
The case from Michigan involved Blaine Lafler, convicted of assault with intent to murder and other charges, after shooting and seriously wounding a woman.
The state twice offered to dismiss two of the charges, and recommended a reduced sentence in return for a guilty plea. Lafler claims he rejected the offers after his lawyer convinced him the prosecution could not prove the most serious charge. The defendant was convicted and received 185 to 360 months behind bars.
In Missouri, Galin Frye was charged with driving on a revoked license. Three previous convictions on the same charge meant he could be sentenced to up to four years in prison. Court records shows he was not told about two pretrial plea bargain offers that would have reduced his jail time.
A week before his preliminary court hearing, the man was again arrested on the same offense. With no deal on the table, he subsequently pleaded guilty and received three years imprisonment.
"There appears to be a reasonable probability Frye would have accepted the prosecutor's original offer of a plea bargain if the offer had been communicated to him," Kennedy said in his ruling, "because he pleaded guilty (later) to a more serious charge, with no promise of a sentencing recommendation from the prosecution."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan supported Kennedy, who again proved to be the "swing" vote for the majority.
Both cases were sent back to lower courts to sort out the new sentencing guidelines.
In his dissent, Scalia warned criminal defendants will now flood courts with new claims of bad legal representation.
"The court today embraces the sporting chance theory of criminal law, in which the state functions like a conscientious casino operator, giving each player a fair chance to beat the house, that is, serve less time than the law says he deserves," he said. "And when a player is excluded from the tables, his constitutional rights have been violated."
He added, "In today's cases, the court's zeal to bring perfection to everything requires the reversal of perfectly valid, eminently just convictions," Scalia said. "It is not wise; it is not right."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined all or part of the dissent.
The cases are Lafler v. Cooper (10-209) and Missouri v. Frye (10-444).

[otherone]

The first problem is that so much conduct is illegal that should not be illegal.


Ideally, people should be taught about their Rights in school. Jurisprudence is the enforcer of government...where the theory of Government interacts with flesh and blood. Judges should have no power to 'instruct' juries...if people realized how much power the jury has to shape law, maybe more people would WANT to be inconvenienced by serving.
Jury Nullification ftw.

[tod evans]

Ideally, people should be taught about their Rights in school. Jurisprudence is the enforcer of government...where the theory of Government interacts with flesh and blood. Judges should have no power to 'instruct' juries...if people realized how much power the jury has to shape law, maybe more people would WANT to be inconvenienced by serving.
Jury Nullification ftw.

Even if juries were put to their constitutional use you still have to make it so the accused isn't penalized for advocating himself of his right to trial by jury.

Educating John Q. is very important but then again so is repealing 40+ years of ridiculous legislation.

It should be very painful for the state or feds to prosecute anybody and the local citizens should be liable for the costs of prosecution and incarceration.

As the "just-us" system stands the citizens crying for imprisonment of everybody who doesn't fit their idea of a conformist are not held either morally or financially responsible. John Q. just wants the "bad-guy" to go away, but he wants no part of making it actually happen.

[donnay]

First, End the Fed.
Second, enforce Article VI of the Constitution

Third, invalidate all laws in conflict with the constitution.

Fourth, teach the constitution as the supreme law of the land and encourage participation at all levels of government as a civic duty rather than a lifetime career.
Amend the Constitution as necessary.

Well said! I owe you a +rep!

[donnay]

The legal system is a dismal failure all done by design. You ought to take the time and investigate the Missing Thirteenth Amendment (TONA).

The Missing 13th Amendment

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/missing_13th_amendment.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpp6sIP19dM&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31Kt-KrMZFM

[tod evans]

Betcha one cyber dollar this "13th amendment" doesn't gain any traction.

But thanks for the links! I'd not heard of that before.

[Travlyr]

Similar language to the original 13th amendment is included in the Constitution itself. It would be interesting to learn why they thought it was important enough to make an amendment to the Constitution. It must have been a very big deal. Kind of like making sure that the president was a natural born citizen.


Article. I.
Section. 9.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

[donnay]

Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Ww4LGmbAY

It's starts @ 3:33


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Of60eD3wI

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

As far as over-charging goes, prosecutors should face penalties for charging people and not getting convictions. That would stop the over-charging bullshit.

[Keith and stuff]

Plea bargains are the worst. Thankfully, there is one place in the US were people are trying to change this. It is Keene, New Hampshire. Activists do almost daily don't take the plea activism in Keene. They go to the court house area and hand out don't take the plea deal tri-folds to people that are in court.

Here is the flyer they hand out, http://freekeene.com/2011/03/03/new-flyer-dont-take-the-plea-deal-now-for-nh-and-national/ Thank you Free Keene!

Cop Block, another Keene based activist group, though it does have a nationwide organization, also has a lot of info on this including some somewhat related videos, http://www.copblock.org/tag/dont-take-the-plea/

I hope that someday, activist somewhere besides New Hampshire start to really organize and do some good on this effect. Heck, I've had 3 roommates in NH that have handed this stuff out at court houses from time to time. That's out of the maybe 15-20 that have done it (or still do) overall.

[Titus]

I actually am a criminal defense attorney. We don't charge by the hour though, nor do most of my competitors out here. It does not encourage efficient resolution of cases, nor does it allow the client to budget for expenses that may arise.

We feel that it still is many a client's right to a jury trial and can advise them as required.

Overcharging is a common phenomenon but it would not be changed by penalizing prosecutors who don't get convictions. If anything it would encourage prosecutors to overcharge and plead out. That already happens in quite a few jurisdictions unfortunately.

It is a defense counsels job to inform the client when such charges are overdone.

[newbitech]

I find this topic particularly interesting. Another aspect to consider is what happens to people AFTER the case is long settled. So you end up plea bargaining because it is the only real option where you stand a decent chance of defending yourself against baseless charges, especially crimes against "the state", where this is no victim who will step forward that you can face.

AFTER the fact, you pay your fine, maybe serve some time, you are STILL having to deal with having ALL of those charges in your "background" report.

So now, when you say, go to look for a job and get a screening, does HR and the third party creditors only look at what you plead out on? Hell no. They see the entire record, what you were arrested for, the charges that were involved AND the fact that you took a plea. When people think plea, they think you are copping out. They automatically assume that you did that in your best interest to avoid the more severe charges, so that must mean that you were also guilty of everything the cop and the prosecutor initially charged you with prior to your "deal".

So in effect, even though you don't suffer the legal consequences, YOU DO suffer the social consequences of charges that might not even have been formally filed against you. For instance a no information on a felony charge of battering a law enforcement officer during your arrest. This charge is commonly tied to the ever popular let less severe resisting arrest without violence.

The other point here is the why. I think the law enforcement community has this knowledge and uses it to gain "respect". Any encounter with a police officer pits the cop against the citizen since the cop is looking to leverage his power in order to gain compliance with whatever he is doing at the time. You see this with cops threatening innocent bystanders at a crime scene.

So yeah its a very good point about plea bargains being a source of "state" control. Its part of the legal process that I believe is meant to take away some of the burden of deciding particularly hard cases. It is totally being abused by law enforcement and especially prosecutors to help pad their stats.

The abuse that this leads to is severe and I argue that records of the crimes that were plea bargained away ought to be completely deleted from someone's criminal history, including arrest records. That will balance the equation out some. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening as the opposite trend is true.

Law enforcement brandishes information of the pleaded away charges and streams them to any private website that knows how to capture a stream and populate a database. These private websites then ILLEGALLY use the likenesses of individuals to PROFIT off of that individual needing to have their name cleared from FALSE charges from google search.

I wouldn't doubt if those websites like mugshots.com that display 10-15 years old mugshots are run by family members of law enforcement, taking advantage of these facts about perception to false charges that get pleaded away.

[newbitech]

I mean look at this bullshit. A whole cottage industry propped up around profiting off of an arrest! Just look at the structure of this removal system to get your mug offline. When the reality is, arrest records don't mean JACK if we live in a society that respects due process. Their is due process alright, the processing of your credit card to remove a bogus arrest! Unfuckingbelievable what this country has become.

http://mugshots.com/remove-mugshot.html

[newbitech]

this pretty much says it all.


IN MOST INSTANCES DISCRETION WILL BE APPLICABLE WHEN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR OTHER FACTORS OUTWEIGH THAT OF A PERSONAL INTEREST

who the fuck is "the public"? I'd like to meet this asshole, rip off his head and take a shit down his fucking throat.

[Danke]

http://www.jurisdictionary.com/

[The Free Hornet]

If the accused opts for a trial his sentence is 4-10 times as that offered in a plea effectively negating his right to a trial by jury.

This may also violate "cruel and unusual punishment" ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )).

If the plea punishment is normal then the jury punishment could be viewed as unusual. Not that I expect the current SCOTUS to see it this way.

[Titus]

The Free Hornet, you are right theoretically although I do not remember whether the analysis proceeds under the "cruel and unusual punishment" or the right to a jury trial. Frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up right now since RPForums.com is not my client.

However, the problem is that the defendant usually has the burden of proving it. The State/People will usually state something along the lines of "certain facts were uncovered that make this crime more heinous". You would have to uncover proof of a systematic guideline or rule that was followed with the intent of ensuring no jury trials.

[newbitech]

This may also violate "cruel and unusual punishment" ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution )).

If the plea punishment is normal then the jury punishment could be viewed as unusual. Not that I expect the current SCOTUS to see it this way.

a good example of modern day cruel and unusual punishment for people who haven't even been convicted of a crime or who have been convicted of minor "plea deal" type offenses is the sheriff making someone's arrest record available for commercial consumption.

[Keith and stuff]

I am really surprised that no one else has mentioned don't take the plea outreach. What better approach? I also think informed jury outreach is good and we hand out that information in a few places in NH also.

http://nhjury.com/

I've been spearheading a bill for over a year now. It is HB 146 and will increase the ability of juries to be informed in NH. So far it has passed the NH House and the NH Senate. However, different versions of the bill passed each house. There is a committee of conference designed for them to reach a compromise. I'm still hoping this bill works out. I've spent a lot of time promoting it and trying to get it passed.

[tod evans]

The Free Hornet, you are right theoretically although I do not remember whether the analysis proceeds under the "cruel and unusual punishment" or the right to a jury trial. Frankly, I'm too lazy to look it up right now since RPForums.com is not my client.

However, the problem is that the defendant usually has the burden of proving it. The State/People will usually state something along the lines of "certain facts were uncovered that make this crime more heinous". You would have to uncover proof of a systematic guideline or rule that was followed with the intent of ensuring no jury trials.

Titus,

Since you're a professional would you mind explaining to the folks here what an federal indictment might look like for John Q. who is a small farmer in rural Po-Dunk.

Ol' John and his family live in the home his grandfather built, times are rough financially so John reads on the 'net how lucrative growing weed is. John contacts the Holland Seed Bank and arranges to purchase 6 dozen seeds.

Now, unknowingly, he's being watched...John takes delivery of said seeds, grabs 6 egg cartons and plods out to the old barn. He puts dirt and a seed in each egg hole waters them and plugs in his warming lamps.

Off to the chicken house to gather eggs.......Two dead and mangled hens so John sets a few spring traps near the coon tracks....Back indoors ready for breakfast John hands his wife Jane the few eggs he gathered and asks for a rasher of bacon to go with his eggs. Jane goes to the freezer and when she returns mentions to John that they'll need to butcher their hog soon.

Sunday rolls around and John, Jane and their kids walk across the street to attend church, after church Bubba comes over to help with the butchering, John sends him home with a ham and a sack of lesser cuts for sausage when the're done.

It's now 4 weeks later....... The agents have been watching, they note that John and his son have shot and skinned rabbits twice for dinner, fished their pond and gigged frogs in order to keep the family fed.

One evening as the kids are getting ready for bed agent Gung-Ho and his cronies don their black outfits, grab their MP-5's and set off to "raid" this known felon. As they're approaching the house Duddly-Do-Right steps on one of the forgotten spring traps and twists his ankle.

The "raid" is over, John and Jane are locked up, the kids are in foster care, Rover has been cremated, the cow and chickens are with sympathetic tree-huggers, the pot plants are each about 3" tall.

Beevis the federal prosecutor has just served your client with a multi-count indictment............


What has Beevis charged John and Jane with?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Overcharging is a common phenomenon but it would not be changed by penalizing prosecutors who don't get convictions. If anything it would encourage prosecutors to overcharge and plead out. That already happens in quite a few jurisdictions unfortunately.

I don't understand. They already overcharge so defendants will plead out. So they would over-overcharge in the face of being penalized themselves? As an economist, I don't think it would work out that way. Their irresponsible and unethical behavior should have consequences. If they escalate that behavior, they will be exposing themselves to more risks. I don't think prosecutors like risks, which is why they bully and threaten people in the first place. I understand it being a resource issue as well, but conserving prosecutor resources is not a legitimate reason for overcharging either.

[Titus]

@tod, you're being a smart cookie aren't you? The first thing you know is that charges vary from state to state. If you're serious about seeking a consultation, I will do that. However, FYI, the defense counsel is told what their client is/will be charged with. Also, I would at least know what state I was in. I'm only licensed in two, so obviously nothing in here is legal advice. Still, if we lived in a world where the state did not have to tell the defendant what they were charged with within 48 hours or let them go, then here is my preliminary analysis.

That being said, you probably have a few counts of weed possession. The severity would depend on the weight and the state where John and Jane live. In most states, John and Jane would likely be looking at a felony if the plants were full-grown. NORML has the state laws of any given state for pot online.

Although unlikely, some states may try felony murder. Felony murder is applicable when someone dies during the commission of a felony. However, that is limited to certain felonies. Possession of drugs is not likely included.

The evidence however, may be tossed. Dudley do right may not have had a warrant or any evidence that John and Jane had pot according to your scenario. If they were growing it indoor with special lighting, then the officer likely could not smell the evidence. You don't mention a snitch or any other method. Even then anonymous reporting is sketchy. If the evidence gets tossed, John and Jane might be able to go home.

However, they are likely dealing with child protective services and a possible lawsuit for the wrongful death of the officer. Spring loaded traps are not allowed to secure a private residence for the most part. However, the officer may lose if the trap was not for defending the house but in an open field.

That's how I'd answer it if it came up on the bar exam or in a consult. Obviously, none of the above is legal advice. There are attorneys who specialize in marijuana defense who could give even better odds on the likelihood of getting a charge dismissed based on the state.

You did mention that a federal prosecutor handed down the indictment but usually pot possession is prosecuted under state law. If the federal prosecutor charges under federal law, he is likely charging under 21 USC 801, which bans possession of a controlled substance. It would likely be a misdemeanor unless John or Jane had another possession conviction.

If you are confused, feel free to pm me. I don't think hypotheticals like this really help the discussion but I wasn't going to blow you off either.



@Money -- Conviction records are not based per charge but per incident. If the State/People charge 5 different things and get a plead to the top count, the State likely counts that as a 100% conviction rate. Not guilty verdicts and dismissals are what hurt a prosecutor's conviction rate. Penalizing those who actually lose at a trial or get charges dismissed is how overcharging then gets bad. If the prosecutor feels like they have a shaky case, they may overcharge to ensure a plea agreement.

It's not unethical behavior if the State has a legitimate belief that they could prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the rapid expansion of what is criminal, overcharging is just shady but not prohibited by the ethics rules.

..

[TheTexan]

As far as over-charging goes, prosecutors should face penalties for charging people and not getting convictions. That would stop the over-charging bullshit.

The simple solution is to not have a prosecutor. Let the person who the crime was done upon be the one to prosecute it.

[Titus]

bmx042, that's just not possible. A murder victim cannot prosecute their attacker. Plus, that rewards those wealthy enough to take time off work. Plus, some may not be able to get to the courthouse if their attacker left them physically incapable.

We do have a rule like that for civil issues, like property damage. An attorney can appear at some court dates, minimizing the impact on the victim in a civil case.

[tod evans]

Titus,

Thanks for taking the time to respond!

I wasn't trying to extract legal advice, only make a point about the federal court system.

That being; In federal court John Q. would have been presented with a plethora of charges that carry an astounding amount of time including at least one "mandatory-minimum" gun charge (for hunting rabbits).

John's lawyer would have initially presented him with the "option" of a jury trial with a 20+ year sentence if found guilty, or a plea with 5-7 years if he just accepts his fate.

So in reality poor ol' John doesn't have the option of having his "case" heard by a jury of his peers, the cops/prosecutor sentenced him and have denied him the right to an appeal due to the plea.

This is the "Just-Us" system as it exists today and it's getting worse with every piece of legislation that is drafted.

[better-dead-than-fed]

"95%" of U.S. convicts have not been found guilty by any jury. (https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf)

"97%" of U.S. convicts have not been found guilty by any jury:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html


In mid June, under a deal with federal prosecutors, Kenneth Kassab was on the verge of pleading guilty to illegally transporting thousands of pounds of explosives when he changed his mind. A week later, he was acquitted by a federal jury.

Though Mr. Kassab maintained his innocence, he said in an interview that he had been prepared to plead guilty to avoid the risk of possibly decades in prison. His choice to face a jury came at the last minute, prompted by a judge's procedural misstep and what the 53-year-old laborer described as a decision not to tell a lie before God.

Enlarge Image
image
Gary Fields / The Wall Street Journal
Kenneth Kassab at the federal building in Marquette, Mich., in July, where he was acquitted on charges of transporting explosives.

If Mr. Kassab had pleaded guilty, he would have joined a growing number of federal defendants who take that option, often to avoid the lengthy prison sentences that can come with losing at trial. These days, not many people exercise their right to a jury trial; even fewer hear a "not guilty" verdict read by their peers.

The triumph of plea bargaining in the federal system, which has gathered pace in recent years, is nearly complete. Guilty pleas last year resolved 97% of all federal cases that the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion. That is up from 84% in 1990. During that period, the number of federal defendants nearly doubled amid a crackdown on crimes ranging from drug trafficking to fraud, while the number going to trial fell by nearly two-thirds.

This relentless growth in plea bargaining has sparked a backlash among lawyers, legal scholars and judges—evidenced by recent federal court decisions, including two from the Supreme Court. Weighing on many critics is the possibility illustrated by the Kassab case: that the innocent could feel pressured into pleading guilty.

More

Study Shows Innocent Plead Guilty at High Rate
The shrinking number of federal criminal defendants choosing to go to trial is "extraordinarily troubling," said Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton and now a professor at Harvard Law School. Many basic protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and subsequent federal court decisions "are geared to a trial situation and not a bargaining situation," Prof. Gertner said.

Among the legal protections given up by a defendant when he pleads is the right to receive evidence from the prosecution that supports a claim of innocence. That means a person might plead guilty to a crime not knowing prosecutors are holding exculpatory evidence.

Behind the dominance of the plea bargain is the rapid growth in the number of federal criminal laws and the stiffening of sentences by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a board created in the 1980s. After scandals at Enron and other companies in the early 2000s, for example, Congress increased the potential sentence for certain types of fraud to 20 years from five years.

Enlarge Image
image
Jackie Stark / Mining Journal
John Lechner, shown in February in prison garb, was convicted.

Federal guidelines not only toughened punishments but also formalized a system to reward defendants who plead guilty by reducing sentences if they accept responsibility or cooperate with prosecutors, among other things. As part of plea deals, federal prosecutors often drop additional charges that could add years, or decades, to a sentence. Going to trial brings none of those benefits for the accused.

"The federal sentencing guidelines can make things very risky for clients. What you don't want is a client going to jail for the rest of his life," said Roscoe Howard, a Washington, D.C., defense attorney and former U.S. attorney during the administration of President George W. Bush.

For centuries, judges in England and the U.S. routinely resisted accepting plea bargains. In the 20th century, however, as the reach of the federal criminal justice system grew and federal courts became clogged with cases, plea bargaining became more common.

Lately, federal judges have again begun to question the practice. In a June decision, Colorado federal court judge John Kane rejected a plea agreement between the Justice Department and a man accused of viewing child pornography on his computer. Judge Kane objected to a routine clause in the plea agreement under which the defendant waived his right to appeal.

The judge said appellate review, even of plea deals, is often vital to ensure the constitutionality of a prosecution and the fairness of a sentence. The two sides subsequently reached a plea agreement that didn't include an appeals waiver.

Judge Kane's ruling followed two related decisions this year by the Supreme Court, which said defendants hadn't been adequately represented by their attorneys during the plea-bargaining process. Plea bargains "have become so central to the administration of the criminal justice system" that defendants should receive the kind of protections associated with going to trial, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the decisions but wrote that the system encourages a prosecutor to charge an individual with so many criminal counts that it "effectively compels an innocent defendant to avoid massive risk by pleading guilty to a lesser offense."

In an interview, Judge Kane pointed to the Supreme Court decisions in explaining his recent ruling, calling them "a tectonic shift in our jurisprudence" regarding the rights of defendants who engage in plea bargains.

[image]
Evidence in state courts suggests a basis for concern about the innocent pleading guilty. Of nearly 300 people convicted in state cases who were later cleared by DNA tests over the past two-plus decades, nearly 10% had pleaded guilty, according to the Innocence Project affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York. Because of the nature of the offenses, federal cases are less likely to have DNA evidence than state cases, which more typically involve crimes such as murder and rape.

Mr. Kassab's journey from guilty plea to acquittal started Nov. 15, 2010. According to court documents from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, he was working as a handyman at a hotel in Sault Ste. Marie, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, when the owner, John Lechner, told him he needed help in moving several dozen 50-pound bags.

In testimony at his trial and in an interview, Mr. Kassab said Mr. Lechner told him the bags, at a farm owned by the Lechner family, contained fertilizer and that he wanted to move them to guard against theft. In an interview from jail, Mr. Lechner said he was concerned that the materials would be stolen. They loaded the bags on a truck, and Mr. Lechner drove while Mr. Kassab rode along. They unloaded the bags at a house owned by the Lechner family.

In court documents, Mr. Kassab said the only time he questioned what he was moving was when he noticed the word "blasting" on the bags, though he added that he believed the bags, by themselves, were harmless.

The bags contained ammonium nitrate/fuel oil, also known as ANFO. In 1995, an ANFO-fueled bomb destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people.

Several months after the 2010 move, Mr. Kassab was visited by federal agents. A government witness had taken photographs of him helping load the bags with Mr. Lechner, who was under investigation partly because of comments he had been overheard making about becoming a mercenary if the government ever failed.

Mr. Kassab said in the interview that agents visited several times, telling him he faced decades in prison if he didn't cooperate. The agents "just put the fear in me," he said.

On April 19, the 17th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, armed federal agents arrested Mr. Kassab. Prosecutors charged him with transporting explosives illegally and as a felon in possession of explosives. The latter charge was based on run-ins with the law Mr. Kassab had in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Justice Department didn't respond to requests for comment.

In a recent interview, Karl Numinen, Mr. Kassab's court-appointed lawyer, said he viewed the case as a tough one. Court records show that by 1989 Mr. Kassab had picked up his third DUI conviction, making him a felon under Michigan law. The following year, he walked away from a community corrections facility, adding an escape charge to his rap sheet. In 1991, again inebriated, he broke a police-car window with a rock, another felony.

Given ANFO's history, Mr. Kassab could have faced additional prison time for being connected to a possible terrorist act. If convicted at trial, Mr. Numinen said, Mr. Kassab was facing a maximum of nearly 24 years in prison. Such a threat is "just absolutely overwhelming to a person," the attorney added.

Mr. Numinen told his client his chances at trial were bleak, both men recall, especially since he would be tried with Mr. Lechner, who was being charged with explosives-related activities, including transporting ANFO without a permit. That raised the specter of guilt by association.

Though Mr. Kassab said he always felt he was innocent, he reluctantly agreed to a plea to avoid the risk of that long prison sentence. "Twenty, thirty years, my life's over," he said.

On June 5, Mr. Kassab entered a tentative guilty plea before federal magistrate judge Timothy Greeley to the unlawful transportation of explosive materials. If he went through with the deal, he could be sentenced to as little as two years in prison, according to his lawyer's calculation. The charge against him as a felon in possession of explosive materials would be dropped. Mr. Kassab was released on $10,000 bond.

Several days later, Mr. Kassab had what he recalled as "a few" beers, violating his terms of release. At a June 14 bond revocation hearing, according to a transcript of the proceeding, Judge Greeley revoked Mr. Kassab's release. Then, he asked Mr. Kassab to reaffirm his earlier plea.

As Mr. Kassab turned to leave the court, the judge called him back. He had forgotten to swear in Mr. Kassab. After doing so, the judge asked him, again, to reaffirm his plea.

Instead, the defendant said, "I want to withdraw my plea right now."

It was a spur-of-the-moment decision, albeit one that had been building for a while. The first time Mr. Kassab pleaded, he thought he must have technically been guilty because he had moved the bags. As time passed, he began to doubt his decision. The judicial miscue appeared to him to be message from God that he should switch and instead fight the case.

Having to retake the oath was a turning point, Mr. Kassab said in the interview. "I'm not going to lie to God."

A shocked Mr. Numinen took his client into a nearby conference room for an intense discussion. He recalled thinking: "We've gone through the guidelines and we've gone through the evidence against you. You don't know what you're doing."

Mr. Kassab told his lawyer, "When I first met you, you told me let's fight this. Why aren't you fighting it now?"

Mr. Numinen said he started out trying to convince Mr. Kassab to plead but "he convinced me" to take the case to a jury.

Mr. Kassab was once again Mr. Lechner's co-defendant. And their trial was only four days away.

As his attorney rushed to prepare, Mr. Kassab went back to jail. He said other prisoners told him, "Man, they're going to hang you. Nobody beats the government."

At the trial, Mr. Kassab took the stand and told the jury he thought he was just moving fertilizer for his boss. None of the government's witnesses presented evidence of darker intent, though some federal agents said Mr. Kassab should have known he was handling an explosive.

After two hours of deliberation, the jury convicted Mr. Lechner on six of eight counts, including illegal transportation and storage of explosive materials.

Mr. Kassab was acquitted on both charges he faced.

In an interview from jail where he awaits sentencing, Mr. Lechner acknowledged possessing and moving the materials but maintains he is innocent of a crime. It was "a mistake," he said. Mr. Lechner said he had had a license to possess the materials but let it lapse when he was injured.

Mr. Lechner said Mr. Kassab "is a good man." Mr. Kassab still works for the Lechner family, saying they have treated him well and that Mr. Lechner was wrongly accused.

Mike Forgette, a retired schoolteacher who was on the jury, said it took jurors about 20 minutes to decide Mr. Kassab wasn't guilty.

"We said it would be the same thing if you were working for somebody and the guy says 'load this up.' You don't read the bags, you don't even know if it's dangerous to your health. He was just an $8 an hour guy doing his job."

Here is another RPF thread about this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382288-The-rapidly-disappearing-criminal-trial

[kcchiefs6465]

Modern day slave trade.

You have any experience with that, BDTF?

They force you to work or is it all "voluntary?" (if you can refuse if you didn't mind staying in your cell all day) What was hourly... a dime?

[better-dead-than-fed]

Modern day slave trade.

You have any experience with that, BDTF?

They force you to work or is it all "voluntary?" (if you can refuse if you didn't mind staying in your cell all day) What was hourly... a dime?

My time behind bars was in jail, never prison, and jail has different rules, so they did not force me to work; not that they generally go by the rules, but they did here. Where I was, most inmates wanted to work, because you need money if you want soap, stamps, telephone-time, or adequate food. So they worked for $1/day.

When I was in halfway houses, the law prohibited them from forcing us to do labor; so the pigs would ask for "volunteers", and if you didn't volunteer, they would send you back to prison. I reported this to everyone in the DOJ (and of course was sent back to jail for doing that) up the chain of command, through the Attorney General and Office of Inspector General, and of course they tore up my letters and went on with their business.

The halfway houses also require you to get a real-world job (if you don't, back to prison), and then they collect 25% of your gross income. This form of slavery left many inmates with inadequate savings once they left the halfway house.

This thread is about plea bargains though, and a system that promises innocent defendants they will lose if they go to trial, and leaves them no option besides pleading guilty; and defense attorneys and bar associations who are complicit in that system. A real solution would be recognition that guilty pleas are a form of coerced self-incrimination. Since the Supreme Court claims (Brady v. United States (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15048134446978918971)) that this coerced self-incrimination is allowed under the 5th Amendment, it would take a modification to the constitution to prohibit the government from accepting guilty pleas. If the government were unable to accept guilty pleas, the courts would clog to a virtual standstill, and the Speedy Trial clause would require the government to release virtually all defendants. Society would have to decide whether they wanted all defendants released, or whether they might be better off eliminating some laws so that there would be fewer defendants.

The government currently does not intend to give people fair jury trials, so I could not blame anyone for resisting arrest.

[tod evans]

The government does not intend to give people fair trials, and so I could not blame anyone for resisting arrest.

And this is exactly why we see the "militarization" of cops.

Peaceful people who trade in or consume prohibited substances are beginning to understand the ramifications of an arrest and many choose a "trial in the street"...

[better-dead-than-fed]

Peaceful people who trade in or consume prohibited substances are beginning to understand the ramifications of an arrest and many choose a "trial in the street"...

The same for people who have not broken the law but are arrested nonetheless. GOP types who assume everyone arrested deserves to be convicted should take a hard look at this stat:




Of nearly 300 people convicted in state cases who were later cleared by DNA tests..., nearly 10% had pleaded guilty....

The denial of due process and the conviction of innocent people undermines the public's confidence in government. This should be noted by GOP types who value security and the rule of law.

[tod evans]

It's not just "GOP" types...

Most citizens who partake of the MSM propaganda support the actions of federal prosecutors in every instance.

I thank God that the interwebs has been able to open some eyes to the reality of the situation, I just hope it's not too late.

[DamianTV]

Door swings both ways.

Information can be brought in and sent out on the Interwebz. Instant Unrestricted Communication, downside is Govt and Corporate Spying.

[Dianne]

Uhhhhh, do you think this could have anything to do with it:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wells-fargo-now-major-shareholder-pro

WELLS FARGO NOW A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER IN FOR-PROFIT PRISONS

Even though crime rates in American have either stabilized or gone down, the incarceration rate (especially for people who are in this country illegally) has gone up - way up. (As this video points out, more people are being incarcerated on civil charges, not criminal.)

Naturally, as with most changes in this country, this has more to do with profit than anything else - and now we find that Wells Fargo is a major shareholder in for-profit prisons. Hmm. So this is what's taken the place of mortgages as the banking cash cow? From Salon:


As Wells Fargo has grown over the years, using its bailout funds to gobble up rival Wachovia and expand to the East Coast, so has the U.S. prison population. By 2008, one in 100 American adults were either in jail or in prison – and one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34, many simply for non-violent offenses, justice not so much blind as bigoted. Overall, more than 2.3 million people are currently behind bars, up 50 percent in the last 15 years, the land of the free now accounting for a full quarter of the world’s prisoners.

These developments are not unrelated.

A driving force behind the push for ever-tougher sentences is the for-profit prison industry, in which Wells Fargo is a major investor. Flush with billions in bailout money and an economic system designed to siphon wealth from the working class to the idle rich, Wells Fargo has been busy expanding its stake in the GEO Group, the second largest private jailer in America.
•At the end of 2011, Wells Fargo was the company’s second-largest investor, holding 4.3 million shares valued at more than $72 million. By March 2012, its stake had grown to more than4.4 million shares worth $86.7 million.


Unfortunately, it’s a safe investment. While a 50 percent growth in the number of human beings our society cages in rape factories may sound impressive – or perhaps the word is “revolting” – a study released last year by the Justice Policy Institute found that the private prison industry grew by more than 350 percent over the last decade and a half. While other industries of course benefit from state-granted privileges, companies like GEO profit by the state literally kidnapping and handing them clientèle, particularly as of late about-to-be-deported immigrants, of which President Barack Obama has ensured there is a steady, record-breaking supply.

“All prisons are awful,” says Melanie Pinkert, an activist based in Washington, DC, who along with other members of Occupy DC’s “Criminal Injustice Committee” is helping lead a boycott of Wells Fargo, which just expanded to the nation’s capital. “But private prisons take it to the next level.” Indeed, a recent report from the U.S. Justice Department found that at one GEO-run juvenile facility in Mississippi, sexual abuse was endemic, “among the worst that we have seen in any facility anywhere in the nation.” According to the report, GEO staff demonstrated:
•Deliberate indifference to staff sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior with youth;
•Use of excessive use of force by [prison] staff on youth;
•Inadequate protection of youth from youth-on-youth violence;
•Deliberate indifference to youth at risk of self-injurious and suicidal behaviors; and
•Deliberate indifference to the medical needs of youth.

These findings, shocking though they may seem, are not surprising. With an eye on maximizing quarterly profits, privately run facilities are even less inclined than state-run prisons to treat their involuntary customers humanely, skimping on health care and anything else that could hurt their bottom line, particularly programs aimed at reducing recidivism. As the ACLU noted in a report released late last year, “Not only is there little incentive to spend money on rehabilitation, but crime, at least in one sense, is good for private prisons: the more crimes that are committed, and the more individuals who are sent to prison, the more money private prisons stand to make.”

If you haven't closed your Wells Fargo account yet, this would be a good time to do so. But let's not pretend that closing our bank accounts is going to hold back the tide. There's very, very big money involved in sending people to jail for minor infractions (so much so that our political "leaders" won't even entertain the notion of legalizing marijuana) and it's only getting worse. Why, now we even lock up the mentally ill instead of treating them!

From Unholy Alliance: How the Private Prison Industry is Corrupting Our Democracy and Promoting Mass Incarceration, a recent report from Public Campaign and PICO National Network, here are some pertinent points:
•Through involvement in the leadership of ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council), private prison companies have played a key role in lobbying for and passing harsher sentencing for non-violent offenses including three-strike laws, mandatory sentencing, and truth-in-sentencing. They are also behind the recent spate of anti-immigrant state laws that are putting more and more immigrants behind bars -- the new profit center for the prison industrial complex.
•Private prison companies employ legions of lobbyists to push for policies that support their bottom line. Since 2001, three major prison companies, CCA, GEO Group and Cornell, have spent over $22 million lobbying Congress. Recent lobbying by CCA and GEO Group includes efforts to increase funding to Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). Since 2003, CCA has employed 204 of lobbyists in 32 states, and GEO Group has employed by 79 lobbyists in 17 states.
•Private prison companies also influence policymaking by strategically supporting political campaigns. At the federal level, the political action committees and executives of private prison companies have given at least $3.3 million to political parties, candidates, and their political action committees since 2001. The private prison industry has given more than $7.3 million to state candidates and political parties since 2001, including $1.9 million in 2010, the highest amount in the past decade.

[kcchiefs6465]

My time behind bars was in jail, never prison, and jail has different rules, so they did not force me to work; not that they generally go by the rules, but they did here. Where I was, most inmates wanted to work, because you need money if you want soap, stamps, telephone-time, or adequate food. So they worked for $1/day.

When I was in halfway houses, the law prohibited them from forcing us to do labor; so the pigs would ask for "volunteers", and if you didn't volunteer, they would send you back to prison. I reported this to everyone in the DOJ (and of course was sent back to jail for doing that) up the chain of command, through the Attorney General and Office of Inspector General, and of course they tore up my letters and went on with their business.

The halfway houses also require you to get a real-world job (if you don't, back to prison), and then they collect 25% of your gross income. This form of slavery left many inmates with inadequate savings once they left the halfway house.

This thread is about plea bargains though, and a system that promises innocent defendants they will lose if they go to trial, and leaves them no option besides pleading guilty; and defense attorneys and bar associations who are complicit in that system. I have experience with that too. Once I had studied law for several years and started defending myself without a lawyer, I was no fun for the DOJ (and the judge in their pocket), so they moved on to someone else. That is not a satisfactory solution to a pervasive problem. A real solution would be recognition that guilty pleas are a form of coerced self-incrimination. Since the Supreme Court claims (Brady v. United States (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15048134446978918971)) that this coerced self-incrimination is allowed under the 5th Amendment, it would take a modification to the constitution to prohibit the government from accepting guilty pleas. If the government were unable to accept guilty pleas, the courts would clog to a virtual standstill, and the Speedy Trial clause would require the government to release virtually all defendants. Society would have to decide whether they wanted all defendants released, or whether they might be better off eliminating some laws so that there would be fewer defendants.

The government currently does not intend to give people fair jury trials, so I could not blame anyone for resisting arrest.
Thanks for taking the time to respond.

My point in bringing up forced labor or coerced labor for pennies a day is because it is all connected. Private prison lobbies and police unions are who is lobbying for the mandatory minimum sentencing. People are pleading guilty because of the obscene length of time they'd face otherwise. A lot of it with mandatory sentencing guidelines. Instead of receiving the forty plus years most people would accept the five or ten year plea deal whether they were guilty or not. Not to mention what they are being tried and convicted of are victimless crimes violating all aspects of common sense.

Prison for profit has a lot to do with these laws being on the books. Their role in the 95% pleading guilty should not be overlooked. Guaranteed occupancy rates as well. The people coerced into pleading guilty are a symptom of the problematic, systematically corrupted judicial system. Same as the slave labor or the new prisons built which are guaranteed full. The symptoms are usually connected in a number of ways.

I wasn't trying to derail the thread topic, only to add another factor in the mix that some may not have known about or seen the correlation between. Or for those who may have doubted that the judicial system is wholly broken.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Private prison lobbies and police unions are who is lobbying for the mandatory minimum sentencing. People are pleading guilty because of the obscene length of time they'd face otherwise.

There are innocent people pleading guilty because they know they cannot get a fair trial. They cannot get fair trials because adequate legal defense is unavailable, on account of government-regulation of the legal profession.


A lot of it with mandatory sentencing guidelines. Instead of receiving the forty plus years most people would accept the five or ten year plea deal whether they were guilty or not. Not to mention what they are being tried and convicted of are victimless crimes violating all aspects of common sense.

Prison for profit has a lot to do with these laws being on the books.

What do you mean by "prison for profit"? I have seen that term used by the ACLU, Occupy, and other communists, who are against free markets in general. The ACLU uses this language to promote communism. I know that is not what you are doing here, but I am confused by your use of this term. What is the alternative to "prison for profit"? Should prison guards be forced to work for free?

[better-dead-than-fed]

Uhhhhh, do you think this could have anything to do with it:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wells-fargo-now-major-shareholder-pro

No, I do not think that has anything to do with it. I think that is communist propaganda.

[kcchiefs6465]

There are innocent people pleading guilty because they know they cannot get a fair trial. They cannot get fair trials because adequate legal defense is unavailable, on account of government-regulation of the legal profession.
Another problem which deserves addressing.



What do you mean by "prison for profit"? I have seen that term used by the ACLU, Occupy, and other communists, who are against free markets in general. The ACLU uses this language to promote communism. I know that is not what you are doing here, but I am confused by your use of this term. What is the alternative to "prison for profit"? Should prison guards be forced to work for free?
Prison for profit is a term used for privatized prisons using cheap prison labor to produce products which they sell for a profit.

It is forcing prisoners to work for 70 cents a day stamping license plates or building Patriot Missile components to sell for profits of the shareholders of the private government colluding corporatist companies. I am not sure if you had heard of the case of the teens in Pennsylvania sentenced to juvenile hall and forgotten. The judge who was buddies with the CEO of the jail who had received a couple million dollars for his constant incarceration of by and large non-violent youths. I can find some information on it if you don't know what I'm referring to. The judge eventually received 25 years for his role in the scheme, IIRC.

Simply put prison for profit means when you go to jail people make money off it. I'm not referring to the COs and the Warden. I'm referring to those indenturing men and selling the fruits of their labor for profit. I am also referring to the booming private prison industry. Specifically GEO Group, CCA and the like.

Volunteering for road crew so that you don't have to sit in a cell all day is one thing, profiting from the enslavement of others is another. And as I mentioned there is a lot of government collusion as evidenced by 90% occupancy rates guaranteed as well as the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. The judges often are incentivized to imprison people. How on Earth could you guarantee people are going to commit X amount of crimes? What if they don't? Well then, contractually they're obligated to lock up someone who otherwise would not have been.

[DamianTV]

Prison is Legalized Slavery.

[tod evans]

No, I do not think that has anything to do with it. I think that is communist propaganda.

Prisons and their associated business model are part of the "Just-Us" system, middle ground for the prisoner if you will, so from that perspective their demand is impetus for courts to process "the accused" faster...

[better-dead-than-fed]

90% occupancy rates guaranteed.... contractually they're obligated to lock up someone who otherwise would not have been.

If the courts fail to deliver enough convicts to satisfy the contract, what consequences are stipulated by the contract? In other words, what incentive does the government have to comply with the 90%-occupancy clause in the contract?


Prison for profit is a term used for privatized prisons.... I am also referring to the booming private prison industry. Specifically GEO Group, CCA and the like.

As if "privatized" prisons are somehow more profitable than non-"privatized" ones? That is what communist-types like ACLU and Occupy want me to believe, but I am not falling for it.

[tod evans]

As if privatized prisons are somehow more profitable than non-privatized ones? That is what communist types like ACLU and Occupy want me to believe, but I am not falling for it.

UNICOR/Fed Prison Industries is an extremely profitable venture for members of the "Just-Us" department and it's common for folks to mix-up their corporate structure and employee stock options with the privateers...

UNICOR funds its "business model" through forced purchases in the GSA while the corporation is "staffed" at the taxpayers expense via fed-prison guards and prisoners..

Nifty little set-up for those in position to take advantage...