S09.E03. Justice

[PrincessPurrsALot]

Main topic:  Justice

Also:  Ukraine (the fuck around and find out country of Eastern Europe); great moments in Steve Harvey's jurisprudence

Original air date 2022.03.06

[Annber03]

I really hope they're able to stop that execution form happening next month. That story is insane. Not surprising, sadly, but no less insane. Again, this whole segment proves precisely why I am not and never will be in favor of the death penalty, for any reason. We have far, far too many stories like this to prove why it's a hideously flawed option, and far too many people who seem way too disturbingly eager to go that route instead of pursue other options. 

That guy who refused to answer the reporter's questions was infuriating. Whether he answers or not he'll look bad either way, mind, but does he genuinely think that he's coming off good to anyone at all by just standing there and purposefully refusing to answer any questions? 

Great speech from Biden. Curious why he did go ahead and vote for that bill in the end. 

The Ukrainians give absolutely zero fucks and bless them for it. Obviously, they're fighting one hell of an uphill battle, to say the very least, but their strength is indeed admirable, and I hope they're able to continue doing whatever they possibly can to try and fight back. The movie discussion was indeed tasteless, but it is TMZ, so, y'know, not all that surprised. 

I have to say, too, I do love how we can see footage of bombed out cities and devastation and traumatized and wounded people on CNN and whatnot, but god forbid we translate someone's poster that (rightly) calls Putin a "dickhead". That's too much for the censors to handle! 

[scarynikki12]

I love the guy waving in the background of the news piece. I also love how happy Ollie is with his new gavel.

Wow, you'd think that presenting an alibi would at least be grounds for a new trial if not overturning a conviction right there but that's our justice system. Yeeesh.

Incidentally a turtle should wear clothes over the shell. Their shells are basically ribs and we wouldn't want to wear our shirts under our ribs so why should they?

Melissa is going to be executed and her big confession was that she once spanked her child? Spanking and murder are not the same thing. And the DA says she put herself there? So does he think she genuinely killed her kid or does he know the confession is bullshit and just thinks killing innocent people is a cool pastime like that Assistant AG does? I suspect it's the latter. Asshats all of them.

17 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

I have to say, too, I do love how we can see footage of bombed out cities and devastation and traumatized and wounded people on CNN and whatnot, but god forbid we translate someone's poster that (rightly) calls Putin a "dickhead". That's too much for the censors to handle! 

Right? Our precious ears! The best part is that CNN is on cable where they don't have to bleep anything if they don't want to so they're self-censoring.

[Annber03]

2 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Incidentally a turtle should wear clothes over the shell. Their shells are basically ribs and we wouldn't want to wear our shirts under our ribs so why should they?

Agreed!

[JustHereForFood]

That casting discussion was not just tasteless, but disgusting. As was the presumption that Americans have a right to make a movie about it in the first place.

[cardigirl]

3 hours ago, JustHereForFood said:

That casting discussion was not just tasteless, but disgusting. As was the presumption that Americans have a right to make a movie about it in the first place.

It's not about having the right to do it, it's always about whether anyone will watch it or not. (Thus the endless movies about Meghan and Harry. *rolls eyes*) Money, it's always about money. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by cardigirl

[Ailianna]

I am in no way saying there are no wrongful convictions or bad actors in the criminal justice system. But John's discussion was unusually biased, with no recognition of people trying to do right in the system, no recognition of the Shawshank aphorism that everyone in prison is innocent (meaning you can't just take peoples' word for it), and zero discussion of other evidence in those cases. He also paints all prosecutors as indifferent to innocence versus guilt. He missed this, on Lamar Johnson, where prosecutors asked for his conviction to be dismissed. I am starting to feel like John gets on a high horse about topics but leaves out anything that doesn't fit his chosen narrative, which makes me question all of his points. I found that with two minutes of google-ing, so it's inconceivable his staff didn't find it.

Over simplifying complex problems offers no solutions. 

Edited March 7, 2022 by Ailianna

[purist]

[shallow] Steve Harvey's teeth are scarily white. [/shallow]

[andromeda331]

I hope something can be done in each of those cases. Especially the woman about to be executed. Spanking your kid and killing your kid are two different things. It's scary how many judges and lawyers don't care even when its clear mistakes were made or there is evidence the person convicted was innocent. Like the poor man who was at the police station getting a gun permit when the murder took place.

I did laugh at the guy in the background waving at the camera. I love John and his gavel. I hope we see the gavel again.

I always thought Ukranians were awesome. They certainly are proving it in the war. 

[peeayebee]

Loved calling Ukraine The Fuck-Around-and-Find-Out Country of Eastern Europe, though I fear Putin's resolve is stronger. He doesn't care if he breaks his own country. He's not backing down.

I read a Twitter thread from someone in Ukraine who wondered why his father in Russia hadn't called him to see how he was doing, so the son called him. His father was in complete denial that they were being bombed. The son couldn't convince him that, yes, WE'RE BEING FUCKING BOMBED!!! The propaganda in Russia is sadly effective.

As for the main story, that was depressing. I can understand prosecutors believing someone is guilty when they're not, but when they or judges refuse to consider new evidence, there's no excuse. The cases John talked about were maddening. Everyone in the justice system should want justice, not "wins." Like that one guy said, if we're convicting innocent people, then we're letting guilty people free, not only NOT getting justice, but allowing them to possibly commit more crimes.

I will admit, though, that I'm not comfortable with endless appeals. I think there should be a time limit -- probably more than 1 year -- or a number-of-appeals limit. I'm not sure how they would work fairly. Obviously if someone is in jail for, say, 20 years, and new, compelling evidence comes to light, that defendant should have another day in court.

[iMonrey]

I'd say "don't live in Texas" but as a regular consumer of true crime reality TV (Dateline, 48 Hours, etc.), I know cases like this are far too common. What's really amazing is how transparent police strong-arming is. Interrogations like the one they showed are in the public domain which means anyone can see these police officers and detectives bullying witnesses into false confessions. That they do it anyway with such impunity is jaw-dropping. And I think it goes a long way towards the debate over police reform. Maybe that should be John's next topic.

I had no idea Steve Harvey had a courtroom show where he played a fake judge, and you couldn't pay me enough to watch it. 

[swanpride]

I mean, I was saying too that there will be most likely a Hollywood movie one day, but I would never considered actually casting it now, plus, the observation was more meant to point out how irreal the whole thing seems to be. 

Regarding the so called justice system of the US: I think the main problem is that, like everything in the US, it's so bipartisan. Basically the prosecutors don't go in with the intention to argue the case of the state, they go in with the intention to win, no matter what, because that's how you climb up the ladder, by winning as many cases as possible. On the flipside, the defender only feels the need to win if it is either a highly prolific case which will bring him more clients, or if he gets a high salary for it. If it is a public defender, you can just hope that they guy hasn't lost his desire for Justice yet, or you are f... because his main goal will be to close your case as fast as possible. 

I have visited court proceedings in my own country...no jury over here, btw, just the lawyers and the judge, in certain cases experts (which are called in by the court...ie to answer the question if someone should be treated like a child or like an adult) and sometimes two "normal" people who are allowed to have their input in the judging...and over here the scenario in which two lawyers are really fighting each other is more the exception than the rule. It happens, but frankly, most of it is more haggling about how high the punishment should be. And if there is solid proof that someone is innocent, there certainly won't be someone trying to throw the proof out. 

[peeayebee]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I had no idea Steve Harvey had a courtroom show where he played a fake judge, and you couldn't pay me enough to watch it. 

Yeah, I was getting ready to ask here if he was a real judge, but then Harvey said he was a fake judge. I guess a fake TV judge is the same as a real TV judge, since (I assume) the participants sign agreements to abide by the rulings (or "rulings").

 

55 minutes ago, swanpride said:

On the flipside, the defender only feels the need to win if it is either a highly prolific case which will bring him more clients, or if he gets a high salary for it.

Am I naive? I'm sure there are some defense attorneys would feel that way, but I'm sure that are many who want to win for their clients' sakes.

Quote

If it is a public defender, you can just hope that they guy hasn't lost his desire for Justice yet, or you are f... because his main goal will be to close your case as fast as possible. 

Of course one huge problem is that public defenders are obscenely overloaded with cases, so it's near impossible for them to devote an adequate amount of time to each.

 

[paigow]

6 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Of course one huge problem is that public defenders are obscenely overloaded with cases, so it's near impossible for them to devote an adequate amount of time to each.

Not exactly the same situation, but the Tom Cruise character in A Few Good Men assumed all his clients were guilty of something, so his primary goal was to plea bargain for lesser charges / penalties rather than exoneration...

[JustHereForFood]

2 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I read a Twitter thread from someone in Ukraine who wondered why his father in Russia hadn't called him to see how he was doing, so the son called him. His father was in complete denial that they were being bombed. The son couldn't convince him that, yes, WE'RE BEING FUCKING BOMBED!!! The propaganda in Russia is sadly effective.

I've heard several stories like that, plus interviews with foreign journalists who live in Russia. The people there mostly believe the propaganda, almost as if they were mindwiped and blame the west for everything bad in their lives. Apart from some young people who are protesting, but no good outcome is going to come from that if they are all arrested.

[Hanahope]

8 hours ago, peeayebee said:

Yeah, I was getting ready to ask here if he was a real judge, but then Harvey said he was a fake judge. I guess a fake TV judge is the same as a real TV judge, since (I assume) the participants sign agreements to abide by the rulings (or "rulings").

He wasn't really a "judge", he would be considered an arbitrator (which while usually a judge or a lawyer, isn't required to be), and yes, as long as the participants sign an agreement to abide by his decision, it holds.

After watching TAR and hearing about Ryan Ferguson, i looked him up, as he's another example of a person wrongfully convicted.  he was able to get exoneration and won a large civil case against the cops.  but i have to believe part of his 'being lucky' is because he is white and his family had more means than most wrongfully convicted people (who i suspect are likely 90% in or close to poverty, if not more). and one of the only reasons Ryan got out and his friend Chuck is still in jail is because the cops bullied and badgered Chuck into "confessing" to a murder he has absolutely no recollection of doing and doesn't match other evidence in the case, including the timeline, but that "confession" is what's keeping the conviction upheld.

it is absolutely horrifying that bullying and badgering are allowed for "confessions" and some (but hopefully not all) prosecutors/DAs care more about wins than actually getting the right person in jail.

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Hanahope

[Irlandesa]

13 hours ago, Ailianna said:

He also paints all prosecutors as indifferent to innocence versus guilt. He missed this, on Lamar Johnson, where prosecutors asked for his conviction to be dismissed.

But I am pretty sure that prosecutor had nothing to do with the original case that convicted Lamar.   One thing I've seen after years of watching Dateline cover people whose convictions were overturned or who weren't convicted and later someone else was definitively proven to have done it, original prosecutors and cops are loathe to admit that they might have been mistaken or that their strong arm tactics might have led to a false confession.  You can have DNA, a solid alibi and a confession from someone else and they'll still sit there saying the original guy is guilty or they made no mistakes.

If a prosecutor boards the "overturn the conviction train", and that's a big if because it was rare in the episodes I saw, it's because they're looking at old cases prosecuted under another DA. 

All that is to say John's take might be biased but that doesn't mean it's wrong.  There's too many people in the justice system motivated by wins by any means necessary more than getting to the truth.

[swanpride]

22 hours ago, peeayebee said:

Am I naive? I'm sure there are some defense attorneys would feel that way, but I'm sure that are many who want to win for their clients' sakes.

Maybe I am to cynical...still, the main problem is that you have two sides whose main goal is to "win" not to figure out the truth and reach a fair judgement. There are also more than enough defence attorneys who will try to win even if they know that their client is guilty as sin. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

After watching TAR and hearing about Ryan Ferguson, i looked him up, as he's another example of a person wrongfully convicted.  he was able to get exoneration and won a large civil case against the cops.  but i have to believe part of his 'being lucky' is because he is white and his family had more means than most wrongfully convicted people (who i suspect are likely 90% in or close to poverty, if not more). 

Ferguson's case was also an excellent study in the politics involved in appeals because by the time he was awarded a hearing to set aside the verdict, the prosecutor at his original trial had been appointed as a judge, and the judge at the new hearing was unwilling to rule the former prosecutor/now-fellow-judge had erred in some way - despite the mountain of evidence that he had. Ferguson was only released on a technicality by a district appeals court based on that prosecutor's misconduct.

[Hanahope]

Many prosecutors use the position as a stepping stone to judge-ships and higher political offices.  its one reason they are highly incentivized to win at all costs and not admit any mistake.

[sugarbaker design]

On 3/8/2022 at 11:03 AM, swanpride said:

There are also more than enough defense attorneys who will try to win even if they know that their client is guilty as sin. 

I hope so, that's their job.

[swanpride]

Well, it shouldn't BE their job. Their job should be to convince the judge to give their client the lowest possible punishment for what they did, not to hide evidence for their guilt. That's what I mean with the system being too binary. It should be about the truth and the fitting punishment for the actual crime, not about two lawyers up-staging each other and a bunch of people being carefully selected to offer the preferred judgement. 

[Victor the Crab]

Let's just call this for what it is. A system designed to persecute and incarcerate as many African Americans and other POC as inhumanly possible! Would that woman, awaiting to be executed next month, have been strong armed into falsely confessing her infant's death were she white? I don't think so!

And Ollie's delight in tearing apart Biden for something in his past is proof that he has a pathological hatred of the President!

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, swanpride said:

Their job should be to convince the judge to give their client the lowest possible punishment for what they did, not to hide evidence for their guilt. That's what I mean with the system being too binary.

Their job isn't to find out who is guilty or innocent. In fact, they often don't know whether or not their client is guilty. They don't want to know because that's not their charge. Their job is to try to keep the state honest.  Their job is to make sure the state meets the burden of proof of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

ETA: They also can't hide actual evidence of guilt.  They do have to maintain confidentiality but that doesn't mean they can let their client lie on the stand if they know that their client is lying.

The state has the heavier burden of proof because they're trying to put someone behind bars. 

That might seem unfair but putting someone in jail isn't supposed to be easy.  That said, it doesn't mean the system tilts towards the defense.  In practice, that's far from the truth.  It's the state that usually has more funds.  It's the state that has the manpower (police and DA's office) to do the investigating.  It's the state that can keep adding on charges while offering a deal so a defendant has to decide if they'd be willing to gamble and risk a longer prison sentence to maintain their innocence or plead out in the hopes they get out sooner. That leads to even innocent people taking a plea because the gamble just isn't worth it. Even though the presumption is "innocent until guilty", there's still a strong bias against those who are arrested that they're probably more likely guilty than not.

It's because of the latter paragraph that shows like this take a look at the system. The things that they do or don't do have an inordinate effect on a person's life. And when an innocent person is convicted or bullied into confessing/taking a plea, it could mean a real culprit walks free.

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by Irlandesa

[Welshman in Ca]

18 hours ago, Victor the Crab said:

Let's just call this for what it is. A system designed to persecute and incarcerate as many African Americans and other POC as inhumanly possible! Would that woman, awaiting to be executed next month, have been strong armed into falsely confessing her infant's death were she white? I don't think so!

 

 

It may be what it turned into in the US but it is certainly not what it was designed to do hundreds of years before the US even existed.

Not everything in the world is racist, no matter how hard people try to make it be.

[Hanahope]

I'd say the system is mostly biased against poor(er) people, who do generally tend to more likely be POC.  

[Lantern7]

Another grim episode, especially when you see ugly people doing horrible things and not feeling any sort of remorse for it. And when I say "ugly," I mean inside and out. It's harrowing to watch. A woman is on death row from a coerced confession. Not even watching John go ham with a new gavel can balance that.

Seriously, there's apparently no hope for that mother? At all? Shit.

Highlights from The Bachelor franchise with the phrase "perfect place to fall in love" for any location is one reason not to watch the show. And yet, a lot of people do just that.

Edited March 13, 2022 by Lantern7