> Once I knew I was alone and safely insulated by several layers of steel and concrete, I finally let out the primal scream I had been holding in this whole time.
The entire post really reads like an episode of Better Call Saul. And I mean this in the best possible sense.
It makes sense in context, where the author is asking the court if there is anything they could take another look at with the goal of prompting them to reconsider. He is not asking if they would like to do A or B, but rather if they would please consider doing A in order to then do B.
Not bad; so you say it's "to review in order to reconsider", or something. So I'll buy that interpretation. I still think the language is clumsy, and way too ambiguous for a lawyer.
I'm sorry the author didn't explain why these words are magical. They flipped the judge (who seems to be hardline) from 180 days jail, to time served. Is there some rule of court procedure that these words invoke? Do the words comprise an implicit threat to appeal?
The purpose of the article is to talk about the arbitrary and sometimes cruel nature of the legal system. They have power because they are known to have power, because what lawyer will overstep the boundary implied by the almighty power bestowed onto the judge to effectively ask, “will you please just do a different ruling?”
They don't invoke anything, beyond a simple appeal to humanity. And the fact that they work, when everything else about the legal system is based around mechanical certainty, is terrifying for a lawyer; because it undermines the system they're trained to understand as “if X then Y will (almost) always happen.” If a judge can just decide, “you know what, instead of Y I'll decide to do Σ,” then that shakes the implicit trust of the system. By revealing that the Justice System is based around the whims of a small group of people with disproportionate power.
Normally I appreciate the extraction of what's left unsaid in a clickbait headline, but this is not that. This is story-form writing, where a intriguing title is appropriate, and the significance of the words is completely absent out of context, so revealing them buys the reader nothing.
Those are the words, but here's the resulting context. The author is a public defender tasked with finding the best possible resolution to impossible cases.
In one case they uttered those 11 words after an unsuspectedly harsh sentence, followed by:
> “All right. Mr. Meskhout, I’ll go ahead and give him an opportunity. Since you have asked.”
> The judge then imposed two days in jail. Two days instead of one hundred and eighty.
It sounds like the words are legalize for "would you please reconsider?"
Defendants are streamed in every 5-10 minutes, so in this case, simply asking again was enough for the judge to agree and move on to the next case.
I'm not a lawyer but every time I look at the criminal justice system I do wonder how it could be constitutional given the strong protections of the bill of rights.
> Recall how plea deals are structured, and how the entire purpose of a suspended jail sentence is to dangle the anvil over someone’s head to “encourage” them to do the things they’re supposed to do.
Is this really how the founders meant justice to be pursued? You get picked up for an illegal substance and, in exchange for a reasonable punishment, you have to give up your right to a jury trial? And your punishment is often that you give up another constitution right -- like by being monitored 24/7? But you're not guaranteed that's your only punishment, you also give up the right to a jury trial in the future so if you break parole they drop an anvil on you without any process or standard of evidence?
I'd be curious if I'm mistaken and this was all very common in federal trials of post-revolution America.
That was some excellent writing; I hope people find the time to read the article.
And on a significant tangent from the article's main point: A friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. I struggle with some very, very dark sentiments towards them.
> There’s a dull reality to my job, which is that my clients have almost always done the thing they’re accused of doing. And usually the evidence against them is overwhelming — not even a close call. [...] This is one reason why almost everyone chooses to plead guilty. Ninety-four percent of state cases and 97% of federal cases are resolved by a plea deal, to be exact.
A few years back a barrage of press articles presented the plea bargains as the tool of a oppressive justice system that doesn't care about real truth or justice but only about conviction rates. This public defender's opinion is certainly not much in accord.
The first thing I would think if I was brought into court like that would be: why are we even here? What is the purpose of this exercise? So three individuals can do some bizarre ritual dance of logic, rhetoric, and blind willful emotion, and the conclusion of this dance decides a man's life? A family's life?
A rational person might judge the situation and see that, yes, it's not fair for this man to commit a crime that could put other's lives at stake. But that he also has a family to care for, and that we might solve the problem by simply taking away his right to drive, as well as simultaneously giving him the support he needs (transportation so he doesn't need to drive and get DUIs, as well as psychological support). But that's not what we give him. We either give him a slap on the wrist, or deport him.
We all know that there has to be a better way, but as far as I can tell, nothing is being done about it. It's like with software design. We just have these shitty tools, that have to work in these shitty ways, and we all know there must be a better way, but inertia and cargo cult and incumbency keeps us stuck in a rut. If there is progress, it's unacceptably slow and disorganized.
20 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 53.1 ms ] threadThe entire post really reads like an episode of Better Call Saul. And I mean this in the best possible sense.
Lawyers tend to be pernickety about precision in language.
I'm sorry the author didn't explain why these words are magical. They flipped the judge (who seems to be hardline) from 180 days jail, to time served. Is there some rule of court procedure that these words invoke? Do the words comprise an implicit threat to appeal?
They don't invoke anything, beyond a simple appeal to humanity. And the fact that they work, when everything else about the legal system is based around mechanical certainty, is terrifying for a lawyer; because it undermines the system they're trained to understand as “if X then Y will (almost) always happen.” If a judge can just decide, “you know what, instead of Y I'll decide to do Σ,” then that shakes the implicit trust of the system. By revealing that the Justice System is based around the whims of a small group of people with disproportionate power.
Username checks out by the way.
In one case they uttered those 11 words after an unsuspectedly harsh sentence, followed by:
> “All right. Mr. Meskhout, I’ll go ahead and give him an opportunity. Since you have asked.”
> The judge then imposed two days in jail. Two days instead of one hundred and eighty.
It sounds like the words are legalize for "would you please reconsider?"
Defendants are streamed in every 5-10 minutes, so in this case, simply asking again was enough for the judge to agree and move on to the next case.
> Recall how plea deals are structured, and how the entire purpose of a suspended jail sentence is to dangle the anvil over someone’s head to “encourage” them to do the things they’re supposed to do.
Is this really how the founders meant justice to be pursued? You get picked up for an illegal substance and, in exchange for a reasonable punishment, you have to give up your right to a jury trial? And your punishment is often that you give up another constitution right -- like by being monitored 24/7? But you're not guaranteed that's your only punishment, you also give up the right to a jury trial in the future so if you break parole they drop an anvil on you without any process or standard of evidence?
I'd be curious if I'm mistaken and this was all very common in federal trials of post-revolution America.
And on a significant tangent from the article's main point: A friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver. I struggle with some very, very dark sentiments towards them.
A few years back a barrage of press articles presented the plea bargains as the tool of a oppressive justice system that doesn't care about real truth or justice but only about conviction rates. This public defender's opinion is certainly not much in accord.
A rational person might judge the situation and see that, yes, it's not fair for this man to commit a crime that could put other's lives at stake. But that he also has a family to care for, and that we might solve the problem by simply taking away his right to drive, as well as simultaneously giving him the support he needs (transportation so he doesn't need to drive and get DUIs, as well as psychological support). But that's not what we give him. We either give him a slap on the wrist, or deport him.
We all know that there has to be a better way, but as far as I can tell, nothing is being done about it. It's like with software design. We just have these shitty tools, that have to work in these shitty ways, and we all know there must be a better way, but inertia and cargo cult and incumbency keeps us stuck in a rut. If there is progress, it's unacceptably slow and disorganized.