11yo Autistic Boy Charged as a Felon After Cop Slams Him to the Ground

[werepossum]

With prosecutors getting more powerful and parents ready to sue at the drop of a hat should something happen to their little snowflake, do you really think zero-tolerance is only supported in educational circles? The problem is us. That's the truth.

I wouldn't disagree that the problem is us; in a democratic republic who else could it be? I disagree that "Voters have pushed for zero-tolerance." We might have taken actions that have made zero tolerance more palatable to those in power, as a result of such egregious behavior as sentencing a long time child rapist to probation only or sentencing a kidnapper-murderer to six months to life, but we certainly didn't push for zero tolerance.

 

[Dari]

I wouldn't disagree that the problem is us; in a democratic republic who else could it be? I disagree that "Voters have pushed for zero-tolerance." We might have taken actions that have made zero tolerance more palatable to those in power, as a result of such egregious behavior as sentencing a long time child rapist to probation only or sentencing a kidnapper-murderer to six months to life, but we certainly didn't push for zero tolerance.

Yes we have:

link

Zero-tolerance policies in the United States became widespread in 1994, after federal legislation required states to expel any student who brought a firearm to school for one year, or lose all federal funding

A derivative of zero-tolerance would be something like California's three strikes law that sends you away for 25 years minimum if you meet the relevant requirements. The policies behind these laws are meant to be automatic and harsh without much thought of the underlying causes.

 

[Subyman]

The problem with pushing zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing (I think they go hand in hand) through with public support is that the push happens due to some extreme case, such as a judge giving a child rapist probation. The issue arrises once the crusade is over and thousands of cases with entirely different circumstances are caught up in the mandatory policy.

 

[Dari]

The problem with pushing zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing (I think they go hand in hand) through with public support is that the push happens due to some extreme case, such as a judge giving a child rapist probation. The issue arrises once the crusade is over and thousands of cases with entirely different circumstances are caught up in the mandatory policy.

Exactly, so people take discretion away from the judge and gives all the power to the prosecutor (just like in Europe). It makes for a system where a prosecutor can dangle hundreds of years of prison time in front of the accused, steering him/her towards a plea.

 

[Darwin333]

I wouldn't disagree that the problem is us; in a democratic republic who else could it be? I disagree that "Voters have pushed for zero-tolerance." We might have taken actions that have made zero tolerance more palatable to those in power, as a result of such egregious behavior as sentencing a long time child rapist to probation only or sentencing a kidnapper-murderer to six months to life, but we certainly didn't push for zero tolerance.

While we may not have pushed for zero tolerance in general if a politician comes out and says he thinks we are over charging people or giving non-violent offenders lesser sentences their opponent will pound them for being "soft on crime" and it will work. Hell, we elect prosecutors and even judges in most places. How does a prosecutor get reelected, he tells you his "98% conviction rate" which is an irrelevant number. The relevant number is how many guilty people he convicted. They have a major incentive at throwing your ass in jail, guilt be damned.

Then there are the judges who must campaign. The one person who is supposed to be completely impartial is sitting in a courtroom deciding cases with lawyers who have donated to his campaign and you better believe the smart ones donated. How can we possibly expect a judge to solicit funds to run a campaign and remain completely impartial when one of the lawyers backed him in the election and the other guy didn't or even worse backed his opponent. How can people possibly ascertain which guy has a better understanding of the law from 30 second campaign ads? This is another one that we elect "hard on crime" judges, often boasting of how many hours they sentenced people in total in their 30 second ads. I read an article, I'll try to find it, that there is a direct correlation between how long your ass is going to get thrown in jail and the judges election cycle. Basically, you really really don't want to get sentenced during an election year and if you do you better make damn sure your lawyer has donated the max to the judge.

 

[Darwin333]

A derivative of zero-tolerance would be something like California's three strikes law that sends you away for 25 years minimum if you meet the relevant requirements. The policies behind these laws are meant to be automatic and harsh without much thought of the underlying causes.

Do you know that under federal minimum sentencing standards that getting caught selling a certain quantity of drugs 3 times, despite being completely non-violent and no deaths occurring from your actions, the judge has no choice but to charge you with a greater sentence than he can give you if you procured and attempted to set off a fucking nuclear bomb. Hell if you can somehow succeed in setting one off and manage not to kill anyone you still get less time, per federal law.

 

[Dari]

While we may not have pushed for zero tolerance in general if a politician comes out and says he thinks we are over charging people or giving non-violent offenders lesser sentences their opponent will pound them for being "soft on crime" and it will work. Hell, we elect prosecutors and even judges in most places. How does a prosecutor get reelected, he tells you his "98% conviction rate" which is an irrelevant number. The relevant number is how many guilty people he convicted. They have a major incentive at throwing your ass in jail, guilt be damned.

Then there are the judges who must campaign. The one person who is supposed to be completely impartial is sitting in a courtroom deciding cases with lawyers who have donated to his campaign and you better believe the smart ones donated. How can we possibly expect a judge to solicit funds to run a campaign and remain completely impartial when one of the lawyers backed him in the election and the other guy didn't or even worse backed his opponent. How can people possibly ascertain which guy has a better understanding of the law from 30 second campaign ads? This is another one that we elect "hard on crime" judges, often boasting of how many hours they sentenced people in total in their 30 second ads. I read an article, I'll try to find it, that there is a direct correlation between how long your ass is going to get thrown in jail and the judges election cycle. Basically, you really really don't want to get sentenced during an election year and if you do you better make damn sure your lawyer has donated the max to the judge.

Excellent post. I completely forgot about judges (and sheriffs) being elected and had no idea that prosecutors get elected as well. It's super scary that all these people of the judicial system are nothing but politicians, occupying two sides of our fragile democratic system.