Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Do Prosecutors Have an Unfair Advantage in Our Criminal Justice System?

Reagan-appointed judge questions fairness of criminal-justice system

One of California's most prominent federal judges, Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit court of appeals, has sparked a nationwide debate about the state of the nation's criminal-justice system with a recent 42-page jeremiad in the Georgetown Law Review. The article depicts a system that tilts heavily in favor of district attorneys, incarcerates thousands of innocent people and fails to hold accountable prosecutors who abuse their power.

The judge's piece challenges many of our fundamental assumptions about the justice system. It is a compelling and important read — especially as legislatures around the country wrestles with issues of prison overcrowding, police reform, changes to civil-asset forfeiture laws, police body camera bills and the like.

"Police investigators have vast discretion about what leads to pursue, which witnesses to interview, what forensic tests to conduct and countless other aspects of the investigation," Kozinski wrote. "Police also have a unique opportunity to manufacture or destroy evidence, influence witnesses, extract confessions and otherwise direct the investigation so as to stack the deck against people they believe should be convicted." Wow.

A recent admission by an elite FBI forensic unit "gave flawed testimony in almost all (of the 268) trials" it testified in over two decades, according to an article he quoted. "How can you trust the professionalism and objectivity of police anywhere after an admission like that?" Kozinski asked.

By the way, Kozinski is no liberal and was appointed to the court in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan. Yet he blames the nation's incarceration rates — far higher than any other industrialized nation, and far beyond the rates in authoritarian China — on a "war on drugs" (that ramped up during the Reagan era), along with mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws.

The judge is dismayed at the unwillingness of the system to examine credible allegations of wrongful convictions. Those inmates — 125 nationwide in 2014 — who have been exonerated largely because of the Innocence Project are the rare "lucky" ones where clear evidence still exists, he argued. But it's often a tough road. (For instance, the Innocence Project in California has produced compelling evidence that 12 people are serving long sentences for crimes they did not commit, yet 11 of them still languish in prison.)

He argues that Americans accept some truths that might not be so true: eyewitnesses are reliable, fingerprint evidence is unassailable, witness memories are reliable, prosecutors play fair, confessions are infallible, and guilty pleas always mean guilt.

On the last point, he laments "the trend of bringing multiple counts for a single incident – thereby vastly increasing the risk of a life-shattering sentence in case of conviction – as well as the creativity of prosecutors in hatching up criminal cases where no crime exists and the over-criminalization of virtually every aspect of American life." Faced with long sentences and padded criminal charges, many people simply cop a plea and avoid the risk of spending decades in prison.

The judge's solutions fall into two categories: openness and accountability. He calls for requiring prosecutors to be more open and rigorous about, say, releasing any exculpatory evidence. He calls for video-recording interrogations, limiting the use of jailhouse informants and better vetting of expert witnesses. He also suggests creating panels that investigate claims of wrongful conviction and ones to look into allegations of prosecutorial misbehavior. He advocates eliminating "absolute prosecutorial immunity," which currently means that prosecutors aren't held liable even when they engage in misbehavior.

Some other thought experiments: video-recording juries so judges can see if jurors followed instructions and eliminating judicial elections, which will enable judges to be less concerned about being portrayed as insufficiently tough on crime. My favorite: Repealing many felonies given that "a big reason prosecutors have so much leverage in plea negotiations is that there are many laws written in vague and sweeping language, inviting prosecutorial adventurism."

Criminal-justice reformers are seeing more acceptance of their ideas in recent years given a variety of national news events. They should be encouraged to have an influential new ally.

Photo Credit: maveric2003/flickr

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jesuit Bukkake Bomb||

    Neat. How is he going to bring these prosecutors in line?

    Woodchippers?

  • Adans smith||

    I would prefer honey and fire ants,

  • Devil's Candy||

    Light on the honey, though.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Read the article that is linked. I think this is the first time I've ever used this phrase online, but, "Wow just wow!" Very well written.

  • jrombouts||

    The deck will always be slanted against the people and for police and prosecutors. That is because our politicians and judges want to keep it that way.

  • Kure'i||

    As a former defense attorney, I agree 100%. The entire system is a joke.

  • 2tiredofit||

    Standing on the sidelines, I know I haven't seen as much as you, but what I have seen is unbelievable. In my opinion, too many prosecutors use intimidation to get their acceptance of a "plea deal". Seems that many times, the only one getting a deal is the prosecutor. The person I was on the sidelines for was told to accept the offer or they were going to bring other charges against him. The person charged was 20 years old and had a low I.Q.; he was scared to death.

  • Quixote||

    Excuse me, no "jokes" are allowed our great system of ordered liberty, and it is fortunate prosecutors have this tool to deal with some of the unruly and recalcitrant individuals who are destroying the fabric of our society. That is how we handle Internet trolls and other traitors, and only they are to blame for forcing us to take such steps instead of agreeing to the deals we so kindly offer them. Thank goodness all prosecutors have immunity, otherwise the Internet would be in a state of complete mayhem. See the documentation of America's leading criminal troll and satire case at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

    What would we have done without the many charges filed in that case? It has taken them there seedy defense lawyers six years to get rid of the felony, aggravated harassment, and unauthorized access charges and some of the other misdemeanors we piled on too. That's six years you people have been protected from one more troll. So now you're going to take away the immunity so nobly accorded to the prosecutors of a great nation? Don't be fools. Without fear, you have no weapon against crime.

  • retiredfire||

    Would you consider it a "joke" if I took the screen-name " Quixote" (with a space before the name) and posted that I was a child molester and I set puppies and kittens on fire?
    Especially if it was widely known who the screen-name represented?
    That's similar to what Raphael Golb did and he deserves to be punished for it.

  • Quixote||

    How interesting. That certainly sounds like a joke to me — one designed to cause momentary discomfort and embarrassment. Who would believe it?

    And what if it were true that I was a child molester and set puppies and kittens on fire? For, example, it you had seen me raping a puppy in New York's Central Park, or if I had been accused of doing that on grounds you believed to be solid, and had concealed the accusation from my peers at the Humane Society.

  • Quixote||

    The bottom line here (for those interested in "serious" analysis) is that my noble interlocutor appears to be alleging that an act of libel, presented in the form of a hoax, took place at New York University, and that those who commit such acts should be "punished" with hard time in prison. Yet both the European and African Courts of Human Rights, and the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, have all held exactly the contrary: that jail is never an appropriate punishment for libel. But we in America, we know what's justice requires in such circumstances, don't we? We know how to handle those thugs, don't we? We know what's a joke and what isn't a joke, right?

  • Quixote||

    (marred by the incorrigible sloppiness of my amanuensis... what justice requires)

  • Kure'i||

    With each step the defendant goes through, the less likely it is that the prosecutor will just let the case go, no matter how much evidence turns up in the defendant's favor. It's more likely the prosecutor will give up the case if his witness won't show up than if the defendant has 100 witnesses supporting his story.

    The scenario you mentioned happens all the time. "17 year old kid caught with one pill of ecstasy in his school bag -- do you want to take the 1-year plea to Use which you will never get off your record -- or do you want to try fighting it and risk the 10-year penalty for Possession?" was typical. Another favorite is "Plea to Carrying a Concealed, or we will tack on the 2-year-mandatory Felony Firearm charge.... want to risk a mandatory two years?" And who wanted to risk anything at all, when the district judge is going to find probable cause of all elements, regardless of whether there are grounds for some of them? And when the subsequent Motion to Quash is denied at the Circuit Court by a judge no more concerned with the law than the first one was? What are they going to do, appeal? With a lawyer who is making at most $600 for the case? Give me a break.

    Between lying cops, out of control judges, and prosecutors who didn't give a damn about justice, I'm so happy I gave it up. Real Estate practicing law.

  • bassjoe||

    I was an associate defense attorney for a defendant in a big cartel action in Los Angeles a few years ago. It was shocking what prosecutors and investigators are allowed to say and do with little to no repercussions.

    The lead investigator had a thing for the big name defendant -- my guy was a relatively smaller fish -- and had been pursuing him for years, on the belief that his high profile "gang mediation" services was a cover for actual gang activity and slowly built a case using the broad RICO statutes against him just based on the people he regularly interacted with (weel, duh, he interacted with gangsters as a mediator).

    It was a personal vendetta, yet the investigator was treated like a hero by everybody else in the courtroom.

  • Kure'i||

    I once asked an undercover vice cop who arrested my client if he'd lie to get a conviction.

    He replied that he wouldn't.

    I brought up another case I had a couple of years before that, where the same cop posed as a John for some vice sting. I knew from the police report in that case that he had used a false name.

    "That name you used -- is that your real name?"

    "No,"

    "So you WOULD lie to get a conviction, wouldn't you?"

    I was so happy just to make the guy look like a dick, even though I knew it'd be useless. Cop credibility to most of the judges was only impeachable in theory.

  • retiredfire||

    Using a false name is so that he can protect his identity.
    That's not the same as lying "to get a conviction", which would be saying something germane to the case, that was false.
    Clearly, you are an idiot and better not to be relied on to try to defend an accused individual.

  • Kure'i||

    Uh... no. He lied about his name in order in attempt to gain a conviction. You can bring in whatever sort of other factors, justifications, and whatever else you want. But it does not alter the fundamental fact that he used deceit, just like cops do every day.

    But thank you for providing that irrelevant and arbitrary distinction. By imagining that it somehow held some validity, and hitting it out of the park with your masterful dismantling of said strawman, you can now resume your normal, full time position of sucking copdick.

  • jrombouts||

    I thought about a career in criminal defense work. However, I got discouraged because of the system being so in favor of the prosecution. Prosecutors can do whatever they want, including breaking the law and violating the constitution and they never face any consequences. Meanwhile the people must go through life walking on glass to be careful not to violate any of the tens of thousands of criminal and civil statutes. The criminal and civil justice system is a joke indeed!

  • jrstaples1||

    Prosecutorial adventurism...that's fun to say. Prosecurtorial adventurism. Prosecutorial adventurism.

  • dantheserene||

    Is water wet?

  • ||

    It's an excellent paper, but I'd add two things:

    1. ALL evidence that requires analysis (e.g., eyewitness identification, DNA...) be done strictly double blind.

    2. Although the judge seems to be distressed by jury nullification, too bad. All juries should be informed of their right to nullify if they think a law is unconstitutional or unjust.

  • Arthur45||

    Juries can be every bit as badas any prosecutor (OJ mostly Black jury - or any Black jury where the defendent is Black

  • retiredfire||

    Juries have no right to "nullify".
    We have a system that makes elected representatives decide what should be the elements of a law and judges to interpret them - though the judges are a weak point - but individuals are in no way placed into a position of deciding that a law is "unjust" and certainly not unconstitutional - given the massive misunderstanding, among the average person, of what the document says.
    To allow "nullification" means anarchy.
    You will know going in whether you consider the law in question as being "unjust", your duty as a citizen is to announce that, so that you cannot taint the jury.

  • BearOdinson||

    You really are a special kind of asshole. Judges are not allowed in the jury room. And the jury does NOT have to give a reason for returning a "not guilty" verdict. Why do you suppose that is?
    But then you probably think every time someone is found not guilty, an angel loses its wings.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Juries have no right to "nullify"."

    That's the reason to have a jury in the first place, as a check on unjust laws and unjust application of laws.

    "You will know going in whether you consider the law in question as being "unjust", your duty as a citizen is to announce that, so that you cannot taint the jury."

    Your duty as a citizen is to get yourself on the jury so that a citizen is protected from the unjust law.

  • Kure'i||

    Retardfire apparently doesn't understand the history of the common law, or the numerous on-point cases supporting jury nullification. But then, why would he? When some of us were in school, he was probably collecting his public union wages and busily seeing just how far he could get his head up some cop's ass.

  • Adans smith||

    DUI laws are used in the same way,have a beer,test .03,get arrested and be told to take a plea or spend thousands on a defence and still lose your license on the spot.

  • DenverJ||

    One of the biggest problems is simply that DAs are immoral, unethical assholes, who care more about their career than the lives they destroy. Every one I ever met cared more about whether they could win the case, rather than if the accused was actually guilty or not.
    These are people who genuinely do not care if innocent people get put in prison, as long as they get the stats for that next promotion or election.
    The very reason that woodchippers were invented.

  • MC Guru||

    In Judaism, Satan is a prosecuting attorney. This, IMHO, says all you need to know about what drives prosecutors.

  • MC Guru||

    In Judaism, Satan is a prosecuting attorney. This, IMHO, says all you need to know about what drives prosecutors.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "One of the biggest problems is simply that DAs are immoral, unethical assholes, who care more about their career than the lives they destroy."

    I'm sure not all of them are, but even those that aren't are marinaded in a system where abuse of power without consequence is the norm.

    The truth of people is that it doesn't take particularly "immoral, unethical assholes" to build gas chambers or gulags. Your neighbor will do just fine.

  • jrombouts||

    Most persecutors are immoral and unethical.

  • Illocust||

    Getting rid of judge elections is the only thing I really disagree with right off the bat. City governments are corrupt as hell. I'd rather be myself at fault for not caring enough to make sure the right guy is elected than to let the local government place their cronies in the court more directly.

  • some guy||

    Agreed. There's no good way to select someone for a position of authority. If you don't trust people to elect good judges then why would you trust people to elect executives who will appoint good judges? The layer of indirectness doesn't give you much and it could also be gained by letting elected judges serve indefinitely (or until recalled). Then the judge still gets chosen by popular vote, but doesn't have to worry about re-election unless people really, really hate him.

  • Eric T||

    No! Electing judges is one of the worst contributors to injustice in this country. The public has a notoriously flawed and distorted conception of criminal justice. Making judges beholden to voters, as prosecutors are, explains much of why the system is so terrible to begin with.

    It is the perfect means to achieve a tyranny of the majority.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "It is the perfect means to achieve a tyranny of the majority."

    Whereas appointed judges are the perfect means to achieve a tyranny of the minority.

    In the end, it's an empirical issue whether the minority in power would be worse than the majority at large. My bias is for the majority, but I know there are instances worldwide where I would side with the minority.

  • ||

    When I saw the bit about recording juries to see if they followed instructions I couldn't help but wonder whether that could be used to further squash jury nullification.

  • some guy||

    Yeah, you'd have to force judges to allow jury nullification AND have safeguards to ensure that only judges get to see the recordings. It would be tough to do.

    Also, why should we really care if the jury is following the judge's instructions in the first place? (Honest question. Is RC Dean around?)

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    Iwould change juries radically. Currently we treat jurors like naive, gullible, ignorant animatrons during the trial, where the lawyers and judge decide which evidence is too exciting and dangerous for their tender eyes; but during deliberations they are gods not to be questioned, who don't have to explain even the tiniest bit of how they arrived at their decision.

    Reverse that: they see all the evidence, they can take all the notes they want, ask questions, hire their own experts, modify the charges even to charging plaintiffs, the lawyers, and even witnesses with criminal offenses, call for witnesses to be brought back or called out of sequence, pretty much anything they want. But the verdict has to explain in excruciating detail how they arrived at their decision: their opinion of all evidence, the chains of logic, everything. That verdict would be the basis of all appeals, such as leaving out evidence or following faulty logic.

    I would also convene the jury as soon as the case is opened, so they can interview witnesses and see the evidence as fresh as possible, instead of waiting for all parties to get all their ducks in a row, then pretending that witnesses are remembering events clearly months or years later.

  • Scarecrow & WoodChipper Repair||

    I should add that although the rigorous verdict seems to rule out jury nullification, one of the reasons it allows juries to modify the charges at will is to let them drop the original charges and find the prosecutor guilty of wasting everybody's time through frivolous or vexatious litigation.

    I think one of the reasons juries are so mocked is because they are treated like dummies, and that if instead they were given suitable responsibility, and if the verdict had to be detailed in every aspect of evidence and logic, shoddy juries would be a thing of the past. Of course I would also hire juries like any other contractors, at market rates, and not conscripted for $5 a day and free parking; and voir dire would be reduced to a minimal formality, since even the most biased and corrupt juror would still have to explain everything in the verdict, including why they thought certain witnesses were liars or evidence was fraudulent.

  • ||

    I like this idea. I'm stealing it.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " where the lawyers and judge decide which evidence is too exciting and dangerous for their tender eyes"

    This is a huge corruption of the system. If the defense can't present their evidence, it's just a pretense of a trial, and the jury is just window dressing for the pretense.

  • PlaystoomuchHALO||

    For decades I've held that the only way to stop out of control prosecutors is to make sure they know they are subject to extreme punishments for malicious prosecution, burying evidence, etc. and then start making examples out of them. That asshole in the Duke rape case would be first on my list.

    My first option would be a public hanging, but I'm not averse to torturing them first.

  • some guy||

    Another way to stop out of control prosecutors is to get rid of all the laws regarding victimless crimes and all the laws regarding ridiculous add-ons to actual crimes.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Woodchipping's too good for 'em.

  • Butler||

    Restriction of prosecutorial immunity and revamping of the criminal code and sentencing guidelines would do the most to resolve the sitatuion. Also, alternative punishments to imprisonment should be considered. Locking people up is a double-negative, economically speaking. First, you lose the productive labor of the person being locked up, and second you still have to provide for that person's basic needs (food, shelter, housing, medical care, etc). So, you have created an economic drain with every person. For offenders who are not violent and don't pose a likely threat to others, isn't there a better deterent? Caning comes to mind, although I doubt that would be tolerated here. Perhaps, if it were made optional -- either go to jail for a year or get 12 lashes. Something like that.

  • some guy||

    Instead of corporal punishment, what about just more parole and house arrest with monitoring? I'd bet a company like Google could come up with a pretty awesome monitoring algorithm that could figure out what a person is really up to based on where they are, where they've been and who else has been there. You could also have mandatory monitoring of their electronic devices.

    But no. The prison-industrial complex needs its raw materials.

  • Kure'i||

    My favorite is locking people up for years for delinquent child support. Umm... WTF hello.

  • bassjoe||

    Eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable. It's surprising it's given so much weight ever. Most people can't remember what their spouses wore to work yesterday yet somehow details from an incident that occurred years ago will be burned in the synapses accurately forever? Okay.

  • some guy||

    Many experiments have looked at this. My favorite did this: They asked people to follow a jogger and count the number of times the jogger touched his hat. Most did really well at the assigned task. Many did not notice the staged, but apparently violent, mugging that occurred right beside them during the jog.

  • Arthur45||

    Independent forensic labs - should use two. Labs double blind. Prosecutors forbidden to offer deals to witnesses.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    A lonely luminary reflects on dark seas brimming with coiled and curling Malignants.

  • Tony||

    You have to believe me when I tell you that "morning in America" was actually the pivot toward a long, dark backslide into horror for this country. No one in recent history has done more harm through sheer willful ignorance and prejudice than good old Ronnie Reagan and the dumb millions who took the twinkle in his eye for a security blanket. Make almost everyone poorer and throw a good measure of them into prison for nothing, and let the perpetrators of the horror get obscenely richer and stay out of prison. No fascist prick has ever been more charming. And no matter how much cop-hate cred you have, no matter how on board you are with emptying prisons, you maintain an allegiance to a de facto plutocratic order that is the systemic cause of this all. You cannot only solve one of these problems. Where do the freed prisoners go, if not to the same neighborhoods that all the see-no-evil Reaganites had them expelled from? We can't sustain the fantasy that we can fix our system and give up none of the power that it gave to us. That would be to miss the point.

  • ace_m82||

    No one in recent history has done more harm through sheer willful ignorance and prejudice than good old Ronnie Reagan and the dumb millions who took the twinkle in his eye for a security blanket.

    I can think of... well... pretty much every other President in recent history. Not that the rest of your points are necessarily wrong, so you've got that going for you...

  • gaoxiaen||

    I have to agree with Tony (and Ron Paul) on this one. Civil liberties went down the shitter when 666 was President. Absolutely the worst Chief Executive in my 58 years on this Earth, but the best bulshitter. I still go out for a celebratory drink on the the anniversary of his death.

  • gaoxiaen||

    *bullshitter

  • B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

    Of course if we swing the pendulum towards the party Tony favors, you get Hugo Chavez and Nicholas Maduro, but no food or toilet paper.

  • jdd6y||

    Jury Nullification should be embraced. Sometimes you technically may win but should lose for various reasons, including the prosecutor is a prick, the punishment is unfair, the jails/prisons are unsafe, the law itself is bullshit.

    More importantly, the immunity issue. Absolute immunity should go away for prosecutors and qualified immunity needs to go away for government workers. If they had to suffer their own bad consequences, guess what, what better government.

    The government should have to pay attorneys' fees when it loses badly (say, on a motion) or maybe 50% at trial. Some way to make the government take costs into consideration.

    And it doesn't end with the largely evil DAs. The freaking whole crew of regulators. From building inspectors to planners to police to the DAs and even judges. The immunity layered onto of immunity, secrecy, and zero feedback makes a society a lot less good than it would otherwise be.

    Woodchippers.

  • retiredfire||

    Basically: everyone goes free.
    Yeah, that's a good plan.

  • perlchpr||

    Do Prosecutors Have an Unfair Advantage in Our Criminal Justice System?

    Fucking duh? Of course they do.

  • ace_m82||

    video-recording juries so judges can see if jurors followed instructions

    Worse idea, ever. My fellow Americans may be idiots, but they aren't nearly as evil as the prosecutors, judges, and police are.

    Remember, these folks in the "justice" system don't like jury nullification (aka, actual justice). I will cede a tyrant exactly 0% more power than my ancestors already have

  • retiredfire||

    Only anarchists like jury "nullification".
    When libertarians embrace the idea, they get written off as nutters and anarchists.

  • MSimon||

    And pretty soon the anarchists have a movement.

    In less gentle times there would be armed clashes. Perhaps a new government.

    Watch out for over discounting.

  • georgeliberte||

    I was a prosecutor for a short stint and have to agree with this article and many of the comments. Just by being the government (a term prosecutors will object to, if used by the defense), you are guaranteed almost an 80 % win record. You could come in unprepared (and in a few cases I saw some prosecutors intoxicated, just don’t slur) and you will be believed. Same for cops and I always wondered why cops lied on the stand when the prosecution was sure to win anyway; to keep in practice I guess. Americans in the ‘land of the free’ are naïve conformist s and will get in line without prodding. TV and movies help this by convincing the public that the prosecutor has an uphill battle to prevent the ‘slimy defense attorney‘ from getting that rapist off on a technicality- pure fascist fantasy.
    Yes, the defense needs resources similar to the prosecution for forensics and investigation, not a inconsequential fraction thereof.
    Evidence gets stolen or lost from evidence lockers by cops all the time. They like to add things to their wealth and not just to suppress it. It is also interesting when cops pass around vulgar photos taken for evidence of injuries on rape and DV victims. Nice!
    Jury nullification is built into the very concept of a lay jury system instead of the European three judge panel deciding fate, and it can be because the jury thinks the law is wrong.

  • retiredfire||

    WOW!
    You were a prosecutor and you believe in jury "nullification"?
    Talk about a system where a single person gets to impose their opinion on not only the other eleven jurors, who have sat through a trial, but also an entire legislature, elected by the citizens, all the while knowing that there is nothing, in the world, that will have you vote to convict.
    The abject arrogant self-righteousness of that belief is beyond the imagination.
    Yet, to libertarians, who believe that way, it is not an example of violating the NAP?
    Astounding!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Jury nullification is built into the very concept of a lay jury system instead of the European three judge panel deciding fate, and it can be because the jury thinks the law is wrong."

    Yep. Jury nullification is the whole *point* of the jury system.

  • Kure'i||

    I'm split on whether retardfire is really as ignorant as he appears, just a troll, or both.

  • JParker||

    One point he fails to make is that the vast majority of judges were and are former prosecutors; thus, the tend (even if only subconsciously) to view prosecutors as "us" and defense attorneys as "them". This creates much of the bias.

    Two things I would suggest would reduce this bias:

    1) Require judges to go through voir dire in open court, and allow a judge to preside over a case only if both prosecutor and defense attorneys agree.

    2) Make all decisions made by a judge during a jury trial appealable directly to the jury.

  • John Galt||

    Ron also emptied the mental institutions, which was absolutely awesome. Before that there was a severe shortage of crazies on the streets. I would have never even met two of my three wives, or a dozen assorted girlfriends, since they all would have remained committed and unavailable for fun and unlimited crazy times.

    Thanks, Ron! You ruled.

  • retiredfire||

    "Ron" was there when a process begun by his predecessor was implemented.
    That is a common falsehood - Governor Reagan didn't decide, for himself, to release mental patients.

  • Enemy of the State||

    Silverglate's "3 Felonies a Day" is a great read on just how over-criminalized the US justice system is, and the immense and scary power held by Federal prosecutors. Using real life case examples, he paints a stark picture of just how dangerous it is to show up on a Federal prosecutor's radar...

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • D. M. Michell||

    I've been saying for years that the law does not equal justice; that America is becoming a police state; and that the so-called war on drugs is actually a war on the rights of otherwise honest peaceful adults. (dowehaverights.blogspot.com)

    What do you call it when a prosecutor is up to his or her neck in concrete: Not enough concrete.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "What do you call it when a prosecutor is up to his or her neck in concrete:"

    Tee time.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I call it a toilet.

  • Alan@.4||

    Do Prosecutors Have an Unfair Advantage in Our Criminal Justice System?

    Interesting question, given the construction of our "system of justice", interesting and I submit, self answering.

  • EC_Esq||

    "In other news: water is wet!
    Enjoy our special 6 part series starting next week."
    :-/

  • TOPDOG1||

    Overreach and over prosecution by prosecutors,(both state and federal) Mostly on drug laws is the number one problem within our justice system. Their methods have become so underhanded and unscrupulous that no justice or civil system nor person can long tolerate or withstand them. Their ability to compel and manipulate jury's has completely removed justice from within the justice system.they should all be required and held to a much higher standard.At present, they are held, only, to very low standards,no more than any ambulance chaser yet are allowed to make decisions of national import.This allows villains and tyrants to flourish, all hiding behind legal status. Many use their office only to play politics. The protection of our Civil Rights are supposed to be protected by these louts.Instead they completely ignore their responsibility. Most should be tarred and feathered before being ran from town.At the very least, most should be brought before a board and dis-barred on ethical grounds for total disregard and subversion of our Civil Rights as well as incompetent irresponsibility.The Boards who are supposed to censer or control these villains need to be removed for inaction

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • latoya37||

    Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • twoskinsoneman||

    "The system is not fixable because it is not broken. It is working, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to give the insiders their royal prerogatives, and to shove the regulations, the laws, and the debt up the ass of everyone else." -clarkhat

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online