|
If you are arrested, or threatened with arrest, do not talk
to the police or the district attorney. Plead not guilty and
demand a jury trial.
In principle
- In principle the justice system exists to provide for
public safety.
- In principle the laws provide for punishment only after
a citizen commits a crime.
- In principle a citizen must be considered innocent until
proven guilty.
- In principle, to prove a citizen guilty of a crime a
duly-registered prosecutor must provide
due
process of law and bring the case before a
duly-constituted court of law which has
personal, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction
in the matter before the bar. Then the prosecutor must prove
to a jury of the citizen's peers that beyond a reasonable
doubt the citizen knowingly, recklessly, intentionally, and
willfully (mens rea) committed the crime which they are
charged with and that a crime, as previously defined by
statute, was intentionally committed
(actus reus), and that no affirmative defense, e.g.,
self defense, exists for the citizen's actions.
These principles worked fairly well when laws were few
and, presumably, more rational. But any resemblance between
these principles and how the American "justice" system
currently functions is almost certainly coincidental.
Legislators and their god-complexes
One of the greatest delusions in
the world is the hope that the evils in this world can be
cured by legislation.
Thomas Brackett Reed
Millions of laws and
regulation do not a justice system
make
The major problem with the
"justice" system is the sheer number and complexity of the
laws generated by federal, state, county, and municipal
legislators and commissioners. Most of whom presume they
were granted omniscience upon their election and the
Republic can only survive if they impose their religious
beliefs, biases, and prejudices upon the serfs, oops,
citizens beneath them.
It is impossible to know all the
laws and their ramifications. At the time the federal
Constitution was implemented there were only a few federal
crimes, e.g., killing a federal judge, treason, etc. Today
even the U.S. Attorney for the 10th Circuit doesn't know how
many federal crimes there are but estimates around 4,500.
But ignorance of the law is no defense in court, even
when it comes to vague, obscure, or densely-written laws.
In Colorado, a state of but 5
million residents, the legislature finds it imperative to
pass about 400 new laws each and every year, of which the
average citizen may be aware of one or two, but is unlikely
to have read any of the acts. And that has been going on
since 1876 with nary a respite. Colorado Revised Statutes
now fill an entire bookshelf. And very rarely does
the legislature recognize the error of their ways and repeal
a law.
Then add in all the laws,
regulations, and codes passed by Colorado's 64 counties and
the
many towns and cities
in the state and, even with the Internet, a citizen
is certain to violate many of these on a given day,
typically one every few minutes if in public, driving, or
even sitting at your computer.
And Colorado is a miniscule sample of the United
States. Multiply this by the 50 states and bedlam is the
result and enforcement a mainly a matter of chance, bribery,
prejudice, retaliation, wealth, influence, or association
rather than a systematic process of equal justice for all.
Then add to this stew the biases and prejudices of
individual legislators, whose connection to reality is often
tenuous at best, to include such nonsensical laws and
prohibitions such as The War On Drugs, warrantless arrests,
imposing their mad-hatter religious beliefs by force of law,
and any other
dumb laws
small brains in big government can dream up. Now even
dancing at the Jefferson Memorial results in arrests.
American gulags
Were it made a question, whether no
law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as
among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest
evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would
pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier
of themselves, than under the care of wolves.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State
of Virginia, 1784
Decades ago Erin Pizzey wisely noted that: "Any
country that has tried to create a political solution to
human problems has ended up with concentration camps and
gulags." With 2.2-2.4 million Americans presently
incarcerated we now far outpace any other country both in
total numbers and percentage of population incarcerated.
And, unlike Soviet or other Communist gulags, inmates in
American prisons are not typically put to productive work
like mining and lumbering. In fact, once convicted and
incarcerated, with few exceptions a citizen is effectively
lost to society as a self-sustaining, productive individual.
Faux convictions
He must be guilty or he wouldn't be here
It is a just person who disobeys an
unjust law.
Plato (427-347 BC)
Naturally, with it being impossible for a citizen to
avoid breaking one or more of our innumerable laws on a
daily basis, the "justice" system is inundated with criminal
cases despite the fact that, as a matter of necessity, the
laws are only selectively enforced. By 2009 Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI)
Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) indicate there were more
than
10.5 million serious crimes in the United States. In
the 50 years from 1960 to 2009 the crime index rate per
100,000 inhabitants increased from
1,887/100,000 to 3,466/100,000.
The question then is whether Americans are becoming
ever more lawless, or is the vast increase in the number of
laws making criminals of ever more citizens?
The answer seems obvious.
War on Drugs
One distinctly measurable increase in "crime" stems
from Nixon's
War on Drugs in 1971. Following the passage of a series
of draconian federal and state laws the crime rate quickly
tripled from the 1960 level, peaking at
5,950/100,000 in 1980 and both the correlation and
causation are clear. Like the earlier prohibition on alcohol
from 1919 to 1933, the War on Drugs has been an abysmal
failure and the use of narcotics is more widespread now than
before. Further, the
percentage of our citizens incarcerated has risen from
~0.2% in 1970 to 0.8% in 2008 and is apparently still
increasing. In 2008 1.5 million
Americans were arrested for drug offenses. 500,000 were
imprisoned.
There is little question that prohibitions always have,
and will always increase crime rather than cure the intended
"problem." But no legislator with a god complex has ever
been deterred by logic and reason. Such laws also
immeasurably increase the size and intrusiveness of
government agents, which attorneys and bureaucrats love.
It is also well established that, in large measure,
only the poor are arrested and incarcerated. The well-to-do
are left undisturbed despite their known drug use.
Additionally, prohibitions inevitably increase the price of
the prohibited commodity while production costs remain
relatively constant. As a result prohibited commodities
become immensely profitable. Thus, the corruption of the
legal system that invariably accompanies bad laws is quite
evident in the drug trade.
Currently about half of all narcotic arrests involve
marijuana . Despite over three
millennia of human use that incontrovertibly demonstrates
the usefulness and safety of this plant in a wide variety of
medical and industrial applications, and the fact that
currently
16 states have made the use of medicinal marijuana
legal, our mad-hatter legislators still insist on wholesale
convictions and incarcerations of our citizens for its use.
Of course our "justice" system benefits financially from
this insanity, which demonstrably increases crime and
destroys public's safety.
Insure domestic tranquility by destroying
marriage
A more recent example of ineffective and detrimental
legislative insanity goes under the guise of
Violence Against Women (generally referred to as VAWA).
Draconian federal legislation was first passed in 1994 and
in various forms by all states about the same time.
Initially the laws were aimed at prohibiting violence
against wives but have served, together with "no fault"
divorce to deter men from marrying in large numbers. And
no, I do not advocate or condone violence against women,
or men for that matter. But today, for the first time in our
history, households with married couples are a minority.
Criminal domestic violence was declining prior to 1994
and is quite rare.
In discussing domestic violence it is critical to make a
clear distinction between criminal behavior where a
prosecutor might demonstrate both
mens rea and
actus reus and convince a jury of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, and what is sometimes referred to as
common couple's violence, or the arguments, shouting,
and occasionally pushing and shoving that many couples go
through at some point in their relationship, particularly
young couples.
Available data indicate that criminal domestic violence
occurs in 0.4% of households, or roughly 0.2% of the
population, in a given year. And the danger of homicide in a
domestic situation is very low compared to other common
causes of death
(Table 91).
Common sense tells us, or should, that couples argue and
fight much more often than they engage in criminal activity
against one another. Social studies suggest common couple
violence occurs in about 10-12% of all intimate
relationships in a given year. But in a free society lovers
quarrels should not be within the province of a "justice"
system. However, since "domestic violence" is an add on
charge to any crime only rarely is criminal violence
involved.
In Colorado, after passage in 1994 of statewide
"domestic violence" laws, the
percentage of married victims in incidents reported to
police has declined from 42% in 1995 to just 29% in 2009.
Either married couples have learned to greatly fear the
police, as suggested by
Table 72, or the vast increase in domestic abuse
accusations is having a very negative impact on the
willingness of men to marry as suggested by
Table 77. Probably both factors are at play, as well as
other conditions, but there is a clear temporal correlation
with passage of draconian domestic violence laws and what
has been referred to for some years now as the
death of marriage. Since the institution of marriage and
families lies at the root of our civilization such
counterproductive laws are contributing to our legislated
demise.
Irregardless of the statistics that clearly show
criminal domestic violence is a rare crime, the net result
of Colorado's draconian laws has resulted in such charges
becoming the most common "crime" in Colorado. By 2009 26% of
all misdemeanor cases in the courts were for domestic
violence
(Table 71). While the state court administrator does not
break out felonies in the same fashion the percentages are
roughly comparable. But by mid-2011 virtually the only
convictions are of those defendants who foolishly take a
plea bargain.
Justice at any cost
Even with massive deficit spending it is clear that
federal and state courts have been unable to properly
dispense justice according to the principles enumerated
above. But they have adapted by dealing "justice" in an
assembly line fashion with such tactics as
Fast
Track,
torture and intimidation to extract "confessions"
(hypothermia works wonders on most defendants), and ignoring
the nuances of the law to obtain a
plea bargain, among other tactics to "speed up justice."
As society pays and expects prosecutors to obtain
convictions, and no baby DA is going to get promoted if they
don't get convictions, there is strong incentive for
prosecutors to use these tactics.
The results are clear in the horrific numbers of
incarcerated citizens, which makes a mockery of the concept
of liberty and freedom in America.
Citizen defense
In the face of such overwhelming oppression by the
State what is a poor, innocent citizen to do when caught up
in the deranged social-engineering experiment that our
"justice" system has become?
A citizen caught up in the vortex of our legal(?)
system who lacks the wealth to pay their way out has at
least one other way out, though it is a long nightmarish
path.
Fifth Amendment - don't incriminate
yourself
Citizens can be divided into two
classes, those who think the justice system is fair,
and those who have been involved in
it.
First, and foremost,
don't talk to police. And the district attorney
(prosecutor) is not your friend. Both are legally permitted
to lie when interrogating you. You can only make a bad
situation worse by trying to explain yourself.
Plea bargains for dummies
Unless prosecutors have incontrovertible evidence
against a citizen, which is fairly rare, there is little
reason to accept a plea bargain and plead guilty. Note,
however, that prosecutors are well known to jack up the
charges against a citizen that they have no hope of proving
in court in an attempt to scare the defendant into a plea
bargain.
I have grown infinitely tired of listening to citizens
who take a plea bargain because they were (a) scared, (b)
unwilling to face a jury of their peers, (c) later claim
they didn't do it, (d) were intimidated or tortured into
pleading guilty, (e) thought the prosecutor was telling them
the truth, (f) thought a misdemeanor, or sometimes even a
felony conviction wouldn't hurt them (especially true in
domestic violence cases), or (g) are simply too damn dumb to
defend themselves, among other excuses.
Then they contact the Equal Justice Foundation claiming
their civil and Constitutional rights have been violated and
they are going to sue. Of course the EJF should pay for it
or, at the very least, provide an amicus curiae brief for
their appeal. Been there, done that. And repeating the same
thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome
is one definition of insanity. Further, while I can't speak
for other states, in Colorado if a citizen accepts a plea
bargain they surrender their right to an appeal.
Hopefully, it is clear that a plea bargain is only
rarely in a defendant's best interest when charged with a
crime. But so long as prosecutors can easily get plea
bargains without having to
follow
the law, or explain the long-term consequences, there is
little or no reason for the justice system to reform. Any
defendant who says they are guilty and accepts a plea
bargain is considered guilty in the eyes of the public and
the legal system. And why shouldn't they be?
Guilty by bench trial
Any competent criminal defense attorney will tell you
that a bench trial, or trial to a judge, is simply a long,
slow way of pleading guilty. So take it as a given that a
defendant will lose if they accept a bench trial. There are
fair judges but why take the chance?
Plead not guilty and demand a jury trial
Face it, there is no easy way out, and unless a citizen
is willing to defend their rights from the moment they are
charged with a crime, they have no rights. Use them or
lose them!
Thus, if a citizen is to restore their life and
reputation after being arrested and charged with a crime,
the only alternative is to plead Not Guilty and
demand a jury trial irregardless of what police,
prosecutor, friends, incompetent attorneys, or anyone else
tells them.
Any citizen who is unwilling to stand up for their
rights, and proclaim and defend their innocence before a
jury of their peers does not deserve justice. And why should
anyone else do it for them, particularly for free or pro
bono?
What happens if you have the intelligence and
fortitude to defend yourself against the massive powers of
the State? A great deal of free information on attorneys,
due process, civil rights, etc. is provided on the
Domestic Violence
Against Men web site so start there to educate yourself.
There are many other sources of help
tabulated here so start digging and reading.
Insist on a speedy trial
I'll limit my next comments to Colorado but the
situation is similar in most states. First, under the right
to a speedy trial the State has to bring you to trial within
six months of being arraigned and formally charged.
So prosecutors, and sometimes defense attorneys, will
often try and delay the arraignment or grand jury hearing.
As the defendant is likely incarcerated, or under a
punishing restraining order during this period that
frequently keeps them away from their children and out of
their home, such delays are usually not in the citizen's
best interest. But tactics in such situations are best left
to that rara avis, a
competent criminal defense attorney, or simply patience
and endurance if pro se.
The odds are in your favor
Once arraigned and charged a waiting game begins that
usually acts in the defendant's favor. In FY 2010 the
Colorado state court administrator tabulates 36,993
felony cases but only 1,059 jury trials. There were 69,695
misdemeanor cases but only 821 jury trials.
Now preparing for and conducting a jury trial obviously
takes a great deal of a prosecutor's time and energy. With
the current budget crises it is reasonable to assume that
roughly 1,000 misdemeanor jury trials and around 1,200
felony jury trials is the maximum the Colorado legal system
can handle in a given year. Since only 1 in 35 felony cases
and 1 in 85 misdemeanor cases goes to a jury trial a
defendant has rather dramatically increased their odds in
favor of a dismissal by simply holding out as prosecutors
know they can't possibly try all the cases on their docket.
As a result if the prosecutor has an unreliable witness,
e.g., a wife who refuses to testify against her husband,
weak physical evidence, or the defendant has a good alibi or
affirmative defense, the case is likely to be dismissed
after a few months.
But what prosecutors often do is play a game of blind
man's bluff wherein they continue to offer a plea bargain,
the best of which will almost certainly come at the
pre-trail conference where the court inquires whether the
parties are ready for trial. The smart defendant who appears
at that conference and states they are ready for trial still
further increases their odds of dismissal unless the charges
involve a major felony. Even then the prosecutor probably
has 1 to 3 felony trials scheduled at the same time, or 3 to
5 misdemeanor trials, as experience tells them witnesses
won't show, they can get a continuance, etc. Thus, the day
before, or the morning of the trial, they will ask for the
weakest cases to be dismissed or, as often happens in
domestic violence cases, the "victim" doesn't show up and
Crawford v. Washington forces the prosecutor to dismiss,
or the defendant, wisely, refuses a continuance and their
right to a speedy trial is violated again resulting in a
dismissal.
In practice it has become quite rare for a prosecutor to
obtain a conviction unless the citizen accepts a plea
bargain, a very stupid decision on the part of the citizen.
And juries generally hate "he said/she said" and many drug
cases. So even cases that go to a jury trial frequently do
not result in a conviction, particularly if the defendant
can afford a competent criminal defense attorney. By
mid-2011 evidence suggests that in domestic violence cases
virtually the only defendants who are convicted are those
who take a plea bargain.
The flaw in this is that real crimes often go
unpunished, buried in the avalanche of social engineering
and dumb laws foisted on citizens by legislators with small
brains and oversized egos.
Conclusions
Innumerable laws make it impossible to obey them all and
many are based on the biases and prejudices of legislators
suffering from a god complex or sheer stupidity. As a result
millions of citizens find themselves caught up in America's
dysfunctional "justice" system every year.
The attorneys who profit from this system are not from
the top of the gene pool with regard to ethics, morals, and
rectitude. And judges are almost always picked from the
bottom half of the attorney pool. As a result, judges have a
generally poor history of ruling in favor of citizens and
civil rights.
Fortunately, we are not yet a totalitarian state (some
would argue otherwise) and those citizens accused of a crime
still have a right to a jury trial.
Citizens with the basic fortitude to demand their
rights and stand up against the legally-sanctioned lies of
police and prosecutors and plead not guilty and demand a
jury trial will usually go free. However, their path to
freedom will be tortuous and expensive.
But freedom is never free and if just half of the
millions of defendants accused of crimes every year demanded
a jury trial the justice system would reform in short order.
One of the reasons the 18th Amendment was repealed was that
juries would not\ longer convict. So do your part for
freedom either as a defendant or a jury member.
And for those who lack the courage and fortitude to
stand before a jury of your peers and defend your rights
please don't look for sympathy from me. Spine replacement
surgery isn't in my skill set.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.
About the author
Dr. Corry holds a Ph.D. in geophysics from Texas A&M
University and is a Senior Fellow of the Geological Society
of America. He is a widely-published and
internationally-known earth scientist whose biography has
appeared in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America,
Who's Who in Science and Engineering, among others, for over
a decade. After service with 1st Marines he became
involved with the early space program in 1960, doing
preflight testing and failure analysis on Atlas and Centaur
missiles, including all the Project Mercury birds. In 1965
he switched to oceanography and did research at both Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod. He has also taught
geophysics at university and worked as a research manager
for a Fortune 500 company.
|