Comments on: Washtenaw Jail Diary: Chapter 4

By: John Floyd

John Floyd — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:33:29 +0000

When the goal of the system is to avoid trials, to avoid putting both sides of a story out in public, it’s hard to see how justice can be served. Cutting a deal is simply telling a defendant to cut his downside risk – regardless of the facts, circumstances, and law. The system punishes people for asserting their right to a trial – that’s what “cutting a deal” means.

By: Roy

Roy — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:05:41 +0000

I post this here because this is the installment where it fits the best. It’s a story on NPR I just heard toda almost two months afterward that speaks directly to the issues raised above: how “Inmates Who Can’t Make Bail Face Stark Options.”

There were many disturbing aspects to “The Diaries.” This to me is the worst. Please listen.

[link]

By: Steve Bean

Steve Bean — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:48:31 +0000

Justice doesn't exist, it's just a concept, like fairness, that we've built up a complex story around (see Daniel Quinn's Ishmael series). If it were a stress-free story (see Byron Katie's Loving What Is or [link]), no problem. It's very stressful, though, and so, if we're thinking clearly, we will explore other means of addressing what we perceive to be conflicts.

By: Roy

Roy — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:01:22 +0000

Fantastic series. That “deal making” bit really rankles. For this guy’s alleged crime, the fair trial he was guaranteed had options ranging from exoneration to 20 years. Making “the deal” lessens the downside. My sense is he got lucky and got out PDQ. But the courts do seem more like halls of gambling than halls of justice.

Sadly, on the way to the bench the accused seem more likely to be intoning “Baby needs a new pair of shoes!” rather than insisting on their rights. Fairness and humane treatment are their rights. But oh, that could be pricey — maybe less left for us to blow on “Black Friday.” There are higher costs.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:51:14 +0000

To # 7: Thank you.

To # 6: Just because the author pled guilty doesn’t mean he believes he was guilty of an offense (such as a violent crime, for instance) that would justify the punishment he has received. As he explains, pleading guilty was part of a strategy, and not a a heart-felt confession to a crime. Hence his use of the word ‘alleged’. Until I know what it is that actually happened, I see no reason to assume that the truth of the situation is any different than he portrays. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

Re #5: Does anyone out there have experience in a prosecutor’s office to substantiate or refute the poster’s claims in point 2?

By: Fred Posner

Fred Posner — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:37:32 +0000

@David

“He was not “adjudicated” in anything. The overworked and understaffed public defenders office got him to cut a deal.”

If he cut a deal and was sent to jail, how was he not adjudicated? If he was not adjudicated guilty, he couldn’t have been sentenced.

By: suswhit

suswhit — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:37:01 +0000

This is such a fascinating read. And I totally disagree with 1. and 2. who seem to be completely missing the point. It’s a human story and a good one at that. This guy is sharing his thoughts and experiences with us in a way that is both engaging and thought provoking. Thanks.

By: Casey

Casey — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:32:57 +0000

I’m wondering how this guy can write with a straight face. “…Not even during the commission of my alleged crime.” Alleged? Didn’t he plead guilty? This guy is in denial and has been using this forum about conditions in the Washtenaw County Jail to make himself look like the victim.

Throughout his storytelling, he has conveniently left out what his crime was, but he does make a big point to say that “I have never committed a violent act in my life.” So anything other than a violent crime should not be punished? By your own admission you perpetrated a crime. Stop whining and pretending you are the aggrieved party.

I only hope for your family’s sake you grow up.

By: David

David — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:50:54 +0000

In response to the first two posters, know this:

1. He was not “adjudicated” in anything. The overworked and understaffed public defenders office got him to cut a deal. There was no “evidence” of anything. Just two different stories and each side cutting their risk of a win/loss at trial.

2. You only “deserve to be in lockup” if you are guilty of the crime for which you are charged. Most people in pre-trial detention are overcharged by the prosecutor’s office with the worst conceivable offense based on a version of the facts that, admittedly, they will never prove. They do this so they can leverage a better deal. Long ago the office of prosecutor lost its purpose of finding the truth. Since then its been all about getting the worst possible conviction and putting another notch in your belt. Just look at all the people all over the country being exonerated after years of incarceration when the “perfect” evidence is shown to be total B.S.

By: Fabian

Fabian — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:42:25 +0000

I love this series. Very interesting. Well done A2 Chronicle.