• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

No bail needed in NY

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,481
39,610
1,170
  • Like
Reactions: cryptoadam
Dec 15, 2011
6,168
14,949
1,090
I don't think the deceased places highly enough on the intersectional ladder for MSM or Democrats to give a shit.
 

Filth

Member
Jan 23, 2010
3,146
86
875
I live in ny and work in the law field. Ny is basically the purge since jan 1st.
 

Kreios

Member
Oct 5, 2010
1,806
266
795
U.S.
Our system is amazing. Sure, the rich / connected will have better lawyers, but that's true in any system. Here, we are presumed innocent. We have a jury of peers. We have rights. We have due process. We are given a free lawyer if need be. We have appeals. We have protection from cruel punishment. We have layers upon layers of rights and protections.
as someone who’s been accused of bs, I’ll agree with you on the jury of peers part, as it saved me, but free lawyers practically don’t exist. They just make a payment plan for you instead, and most of them are overworked so they just tell you to settle (which is punishing the innocent.)
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Ornlu

Cravis

Gold Member
Aug 18, 2006
1,241
1,806
1,390
The drunk driving articles piss me off to no end. It always seems like the drunk driver is the one to survive while the other party is killed.

There should be a three strike law on drunk driving. First time is license suspension with warning that you could permanently forfeit your right to drive. Second time longer suspension. Third time, that’s it you are no longer allowed to have a license. Sorry that your life will now be forever shitty bumming rides and paying for Ubers. If that saves someone from dying because you can’t keep your shit together then I think it’s a fair trade off.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,948
19,867
855
as someone who’s been accused of bs, I’ll agree with you on the jury of peers part, as it saved me, but free lawyers practically don’t exist. They just make a payment plan for you instead, and most of them are overworked so they just tell you to settle (which is punishing the innocent.)
You had to pay for a court appointed attorney?


If you've been charged with a criminal offense and lack the resources to hire legal representation, you may be entitled to a court-appointed attorney. The right to an attorney in criminal proceedings is enshrined within the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, not until the 1963 Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright was it established that criminal defendants who are unable to afford a lawyer have a right to free legal representation.
As for being told to plea... unfortunately i'm not sure how we could avoid that.

As the above link goes on:

Public defenders typically have extremely large caseloads, so they may not have the same amount of time to spend on your case that a privately paid attorney would. However, it also should be noted that since public defenders work on so many cases, they typically know the prosecuting attorneys and judges quite well, and can use this to the advantage of their clients.

As with privately hired attorneys, court-appointed lawyers are legally obligated to zealously defend their clients' interests. Also, despite the fact that public defenders and other lawyers appointed by the court are paid by the same entity that pays the prosecutors and judges (the government), they work for you.
So, they're overloaded and dealing with a majority guilty people. Every guilty person that pleas gives them more time to work on innocent cases they care about... so even if they are totally dedicated and awesome, they will have an interest in most of their clients making a deal. This also lowers workload on the entire system [judges, etc].

We've all seen this be abused on tv show after tv show, where someone innocent is asked to make a deal for, say, 3 years or else face 20. And im sure that happens, and im sure some scared of 20 make the deal. And as horrible as that decision is... i fail to see an alternative. If the charges dictate 20 if found guilty, then a defendant should be able to make that choice. It's bad they're pressured into it, of course, but the only way i can see avoiding that is not letting people plea down at all, which seems far worse.

That said, people still have access to a lawyer. Not the best lawyer, likely, but we can't expect that. Far better than a system that puts people in front of a judge that can't defend themselves.

All systems have issues. Resource strain for free resources being one [this is one of the reasons i'm against universal health care - we all will get in line for overloaded 'public defenders']. And sure, abuse and corruption. But the core is something amazing, that works out for the majority. We could certainly get rid of public defenders, and then not have cases where one recommends a bad deal.. but i don't think that is neccessarily a good idea,