criminal justice reform

Belk · Jul 23, 2025

Desk trauma said:
We may have gone around on this before but I think this would be the most effective way to end police closing ranks around bad actors or shuffling them off to other departments.

The issue there is pensions are a pool. You are asking to punish the good actors along with the bad in order to enforce compliance with a desired ethical outcome. That does not strike me as a good methodology. I think the better way is to make high ethical standards the bar and have individualized enforcement much like we do with the military. By all means punish individual officers by removing their pension, but don't make the pension fund a slush fund for litigation. That will just encourage unscrupulous behavior in litigants.

dogs4thewin · Jul 23, 2025

Aaron112 said:
In Germany under the devil during the big war, what changes were needed ?

A system that allows plea deals is not just . A system that needs plea deals is temporary, and will soon be no more.

Until they figure out how to get more cases through without plea deals otherwise the system would come to a complete stop and they would HAVE to release more people for lack of resources ( not being able to ensure rights. In fact, I read just yesterday evening that Mass. had to do just that with 120 case not enough public defenders so they were FORCED to release the people some of whom were suspected of violent charges.

The other benefit to plea deals is that it sometimes (though not always) ends up with what the charge should have been anyway. Either, because the DA over charged or because the defense lawyer is able to point out weaknesses that the state would be unlikely to prove all of the elements, or sometimes if the police messed up and did not follow the defendant's rights to a T a plea bargain can allow for some level of accountability sense under our system like it or not if a defendant's rights are violated ( and there is a reasson they have them the case can be thrown out of court, but if the judge allows an agreed upon plea deal there is some level of accountaability really for both the state and the defendant.

Also, and sometimes victims/ families do not realize but especially if the DA allows the family in on the deal it can actually spare the victim as well from having to go through a trial that may or may not take days and may or may or may not result in a conviction.

I will say that what is sometimes called the jury tax is really what is not just. A so called jury tax is not an actual money tax, but whether refers to the MUCH harsher sentences often inposed if a defendant does not take a deal.

The D.A .may for example offer a ten year plea deal; meanwhile the person could face twice that or life if they go to trial and lose which would you pick?

Another benefit that deals sometimes offer to defendants is the deal may say if you take this deal we will asks the judge ( who have to approve any deal reached by the parties ( and usually does) to allow your sentences to run back to back as oppsed to one after another. For example, let us say that the judge gives a defendant ten years for charge a five years for charge B and five years for charge C under the deal the defendant would serve ten years whether than 20 ( In some states there are actually laws that require a judge to sentence one way or the other in particular cases as well.

dogs4thewin · Jul 23, 2025

Larniavc said:
Pleading guilty to the charge and a plea deal are not the same thing.

kinda is and kinda is not

Under deals you still plead guilty except that it is usually either to a lesser crime and/or lesser sentence. Sometimes it is for the chance to have your record cleared if you complete the program, but otherwise you usually still have some type of conviction ( and even if you do not if you get in trouble again the court knows you have had the benefit of a program one time, so they are more likey to sentence you harsher (even if according to a "regular" background check a "Joe Blow' would have no idea you have had legal trouble before.

dogs4thewin · Jul 23, 2025

Larniavc said:
Get a new system. Isn't that the point of the thread?

The point of this thread was actually ( and maybe I should have made myself clearer, but to fix the current system ( in particular as it releates to the VERY high recidivism rates.

BCP1928 · Jul 23, 2025

Belk said:
I thought my ideas were expensive. While I don't disagree with your points you are talking about a massive build up of our current legal infrastructure. Both on the prosecution and the public defense sides along with increased need for courts.

Yes, and it's an almost insurmountable problem. But I take issue with those who support police reform and training as the solution. Are we going to train the police to be happy and efficient when the guy that is shooting at them now is the same guy they arrested for shooting at them last week? Shall we train them to not to be hostile and defensive when they stop a car known to belong to an individual with two convictions for armed assault in the last three years? The fellow who shot the ICE officer had a rap sheet that included arrests for felony grand larceny, second degree assault, third degree assault, criminal contempt of court, petty larceny and reckless driving and was currently wanted for armed robbery--all in the two years since he came into the country. What shall we do about it? I know, let's blame Biden and throw the guy back into the briar patch he came out of. Right. If he hadn't turned out to be an illegal alien he'd probably be back on the street by now.

SimplyMe · Jul 23, 2025

dogs4thewin said:
The point of this thread was actually ( and maybe I should have made myself clearer, but to fix the current sentence ( in particular as it releates to the VERY high recidivism rates.

In that case, what it seems you really want is prison reform. Currently, prison tends to be viewed as a punishment and ends up being a training course for criminals (taught by the other inmates). Treating people like "animals" doesn't help to teach them to act human. While there do seem to be some programs to help inmates improve themselves, it is a tough thing to do -- particularly for those not used to putting in the work. Some of the issues they often face is abuse from other inmates, few good areas where they can study in a quiet location (a quiet, safe location), a lack of needed materials, etc. Again, allowing them the needed access to things like computers, or even simply paper and pencils, is seen as "luxuries" that we shouldn't be giving inmates (who we feel must be punished).

Fantine said:
One thing no one has written about or thought of. Elect law abiding leaders who sent a good example for the Youth of America and we will have fewer criminals . When people like the president himself continually escapes accountability other than paying hundreds of millions of dollars of legal bills, young people have no one to look up to. They believe the system is unfair. They believe that only tax frauds and people who cheat their subcontractors and people who game the system can get ahead. Think about that next time you vote.

We'd first have to clean up our toxic politics. Many good people refuse to run because they know their good name will baselessly be dragged through the mud. Those good people that do run tend to be made to look similar to the corrupt political leaders, between lies and political games. We'd also need to change both parties from casting blame, trying to blame the other side for all the problems in the world, and trying to make people afraid, making them believe everything is broken, corrupt, or both.

Hans Blaster · Jul 23, 2025

Larniavc said:
Pleading guilty to the charge and a plea deal are not the same thing.

All plea deals involve pleading guilty. It's kind of in the name. In a plea, the defendant must admit what they did.

There are definitely problems with the plea deal system, but they involve things like aggressive overcharging, inadequate defense counsel, sloppy police work, and corruption.

Desk trauma · Jul 23, 2025

Belk said:
The issue there is pensions are a pool. You are asking to punish the good actors along with the bad in order to enforce compliance with a desired ethical outcome.

The problem is the “good” looking the other way is entrenched. If closing ranks and covering for others cost them, rather than tax payers, bad actors would be weeded out well before they cause harm enough to really cost others.

Fantine · Jul 23, 2025

From AI summary:
70% of people apparently in jail are awaiting trial incarcerated because they cannot afford bail. Imagine how much Rehabilitation, therapeutic programs like pairing inmates with pets, and more could be afforded if we only had 30% as many prisoners to worry about. We could really be a force for change in their lives. That is why the bail project was instituted so that non-violent suspects could get on with their lives until trial. Many times people who are arrested for things like having unpaid tickets can't make bail and then their lives are on a downward spiral. Their car is impounded. They lose their job. Their children might have to get SNAP benefits and Medicaid because the parent is not able to support them. I have attended meetings where bail project representatives have spoken and I think it is a good program. If there were concerns, bail could be paired with ankle bracelets which, at least where I live, can only be used by people who can afford to pay for them. The Bail project keeps in touch with people who are on bail to make sure they get to their Court appearances sending reminder texts and emails right before the event. When they get their bail back the bail project can use it for someone else so the same money is being recycled over and over. Very few people don't appear for trial

Belk · Jul 23, 2025

Desk trauma said:
The problem is the “good” looking the other way is entrenched. If closing ranks and covering for others cost them, rather than tax payers, bad actors would be weeded out well before they cause harm enough to really cost others.

It is entrenched, but collective punishment based on perception of bad behavior is a poor way to motivate people into compliance. It strikes me as it would have the opposite of the intended effect since people coming forward to denounce bad behavior is going to lead to increased fines from litigation. The natural response would be to clam up and deny any wrong doing in order to limit the amount of bleeding.

Desk trauma · Jul 23, 2025

Belk said:
It is entrenched, but collective punishment based on perception of bad behavior is a poor way to motivate people into compliance.

People will do a lot to make sure their pocket isn’t the one being reached into because others did wrong.

Belk said:
The natural response would be to clam up and deny any wrong doing in order to limit the amount of bleeding.

They clamp down and cover up now, because they can afford to. It’s not them footing the bill after all but cases still get made. If they persist in doing so they will eventually feel enough pain that they will cease.

Belk · Jul 23, 2025

Desk trauma said:
People will do a lot to make sure their pocket isn’t the one being reached into because others did wrong.

They clamp down and cover up now, because they can afford to. It’s not them footing the bill after all but cases still get made. If they persist in doing so they will eventually feel enough pain that they will cease.

I don't see it happening. I see it reinforcing the decision to close ranks. When you attack a group the reaction is not to expunge people but to close in and defend the group.

Desk trauma · Jul 23, 2025

Belk said:
I don't see it happening. I see it reinforcing the decision to close ranks. When you attack a group the reaction is not to expunge people but to close in and defend the group.

Perhaps law enforcement is immune to classical conditioning as well as reason, if that’s the case there’s no point in doing anything and we must accept their abuses as inevitable.

Belk · Jul 23, 2025

Desk trauma said:
Perhaps law enforcement is immune to classical conditioning as well as reason, if that’s the case there’s no point in doing anything and we must accept their abuses as inevitable.

Must we? Or should we use individualized tools to enforce ethical compliance?

Say it aint so · Jul 23, 2025

Belk said:
1) Increase police training and salary to attract better candidates.
2) Implement nationwide policing standards group.
3) Deal with the legacy of qualified immunity.
4) Ensure prosecutors are charging based on crime level not one's political ambitions.
5) Make prisons a place of rehabilitation, not punishment.

All of which requires money we are not willing to spend.

Oddly enough, some of the findings of a past DOJ task force looking at criminal reform.
It got thrown in the trash by the next president.

Larniavc · Jul 23, 2025

dogs4thewin said:
Under deals you still plead guilty except that it is usually either to a lesser crime and/or lesser sentence.

Which is why it's different.

Larniavc · Jul 23, 2025

dogs4thewin said:
The point of this thread was actually ( and maybe I should have made myself clearer, but to fix the current system ( in particular as it releates to the VERY high recidivism rates.

The answer is still to get a new system. Tinkering around the edges does not seem to have worked.

Larniavc · Jul 23, 2025

Hans Blaster said:
All plea deals involve pleading guilty. It's kind of in the name. In a plea, the defendant must admit what they did.

There are definitely problems with the plea deal system, but they involve things like aggressive overcharging, inadequate defense counsel, sloppy police work, and corruption.

Pleading guilty to the original charges is not the same as pleading guilty to the different, lesser charges.

Larniavc · Jul 23, 2025

Fantine said:
That is why the bail project was instituted so that non-violent suspects could get on with their lives until trial. Many times people who are arrested for things like having unpaid tickets can't make bail and then their lives are on a downward spiral. Their car is impounded. They lose their job. Their children might have to get SNAP benefits and Medicaid because the parent is not able to support them.

Why not have bail like in the UK (doesn't cost anything)?

Yarddog · Jul 23, 2025

dogs4thewin said:
I guess this would go here.

What reforms should be made to the criminal justice system which is a BAD system.

Do better reaching them before they turn to crime.

criminal justice reform

Senior Member

dog lover

​

dog lover

dog lover

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Raised by bees

The pickles are up to something

Dona Quixote

Senior Member

The pickles are up to something

Senior Member

The pickles are up to something

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Senior Contributor

Similar threads